Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Sheffield Water Charges) Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL,

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Denbigh, Gosport, Keighley, Leicester, Rochester and Chatham Joint Sewerage District, and Rotherham," presented by Mr. NEVILLS CHAMBERLAIN; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 94.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY.

CONSTANTINOPLE (RUSSIAN SHIPS).

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Allies at any time prohibited Soviet shipping from entering the port of Constantinople, and, if so, for what reason?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The answer is in the negative.

CHESTER CONCESSION.

Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has had information that the Chester Railway and Mining Concession has been ratified
by the Turkish Nationalist Assembly; and whether this concession in any way violates commercial contracts previously obtained by British companies?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but failing information regarding the exact nature of the concessions, as modified by the Angora Government, am not in a position to reply to the second part.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: May I point out that the question does not apply to Iraq or Mosul at all?

Mr. McNEILL: Our information is that various modifications have been made by the Angora Government, and we have not yet discovered what they are. Therefore, cannot give any further information.

Captain W. BENN: Will the American Government be represented at Lausanne in reference to this concession?

Mr. McNEILL: There is a question on that subject later.

ORTHODOX CATHEDRAL, WARSAW.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now ascertained whether the Polish Government intends to demolish the Orthodox Cathedral at Warsaw?

Mr. McNEILL: I understand that the demolition of the building will be begun in May.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How is it that when I questioned the hon. Gentleman on this matter last week he had no information? Are the Government going to make any representations against this act of vandalism?

Mr. McNEILL: The reason is that I had no information, because it did not appear to be a matter with which we were concerned, but I showed my anxiety to meet the hon. and gallant Member by obtaining the information.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are we now taking any steps to make representations?

Mr. McNEILL: No, certainly not.

EASTERN GALICIA (VICE CONSULS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is a British Vice-Consul at. Boryslaw, Eastern Galicia; whether a Vice-Consul was appointed there in January, 1921; and, if there is no British Vice-Consul there now, when he was withdrawn?

Mr. McNEILL: An unsalaried Vice-Consul was appointed to Boryslaw in January, 1921, and he still holds the appointment.

Lieut.- Commander KENWO RTHY: Then the information which the hon. Gentleman gave me last week, that we had only one representative in Eastern Galicia, was not quite accurate?

Mr. McNEILL: I am afraid that, like Dr. Johnson on a previous occasion, I "made a mistake through sheer ignorance.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA

TREATMENT OF CHRISTIANS.

Mr. SEXTON: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any knowledge as to the arrest in August last of Cembrosious, the Catholicos of Georgia, by the Soviet Government; whether he has been brought to trial or is about to be so brought on a capital charge; and, if so, what is the nature of such charge?

Mr. McNEILL: My information is that the Catholicos is confined to his own residence but is allowed to attend religious functions under escort. It is not known whether he is to be brought to trial, nor, if he is. what charge will be preferred.

TRADE AGREEMENT.

Mr. LANSBURY: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Cabinet is considering the denunciation of the trade agreement with Russia: and whether, before any such action is taken, the House of Commons will be given an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject?

Mr. McNEILL: The question is not under consideration by the Cabinet.

CORN EXPORTS.

Sir W. DAVISON: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information which he can give the House as to the export abroad by the Russian Soviet Government of largo quantities of corn as well as the gift of corn by the Russian Government to the German workers in the Ruhr?

Mr. McNEILL: I am unable to give any more definite information as to exports of grain from Russia than is contained in my reply to the Noble Lord the Member for Northwich (Lord Colum Crichton-Stuart) on 12th April. The gift to the workers of the Ruhr consisted, it is understood, of 8,000 tons of wheat, and was made by the Central Soviet of Professional Unions.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not a fact that while this corn is being exported from Russia large numbers of the Russian people are starving, and that appeals are being made for foreign relief?

Mr. McNEILL: I believe that that is the case.

BRITISH TRAWLER "JAMES JOHNSON" (SEIZURE).

Captain Viscount CURZON: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how long it is now since His Majesty's Government started to make representations to the Soviet Government with reference to the Hull fishermen recently captured by the piratical action of Soviet naval forces off Murmansk: whether any reply has yet been received from Mr. Hodgson in the matter; and what action His Majesty's Government propose to take to put an end to this intolerable situation and to ensure that these acts of piracy are not repeated?

Mr. McNEILL: Information of the seizure of the trawler "James Johnson" by a Russian cruiser was received at the Foreign Office on 2nd April. Mr. Hodgson was immediately instructed by telegram to make inquiries and report, pending the receipt of which there could be no question of representations to the Soviet Government. Mr. Hodgson's report was only received yesterday, and is to the effect that the crew of the trawler are detained in the vessel and that the case was due for hearing before the people's court on 15th April. It is understood that the owners have made
arrangements to he represented at the trial by their Moscow law agent. Pending the result of these proceedings, no representations have been made to the Soviet Government. As regards the last part of the question, it is impossible to make any statement at present.

Viscount CURZON: Do His Majesty's Government recognise the right of the Soviet Government to take piratical action against our fishermen in the White Sea, and, if so, do they propose to recognise the findings of the people's court at Murmansk?

Mr. McNEILL: Certainly, we do not recognise the right of the Russian Government or of any Government to carry on piratical proceedings, but we must await the proceedings of the court before we can do anything further.

Viscount CURZON: Is it not a, fact that the trawler was seized ten miles off the coast? If so, why is not His Majesty's vessel now in that sea ordered to go into Murmansk and take it over?

Mr. McNEILL: That question should be addressed to the First Lord of the Admiralty.

Viscount CURZON: But this is a matter for the Foreign Office. 'Inc lives of men are at stake.

BRITISH AGENT. MOSCOW.

Mr. GILBERT: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether this country is at present represented in Soviet Russia and, if so, what is the official designation of the British representative in that country; where is he located; what staff has he to assist him in his duties and are they all British subjects; and what is the approximate yearly cost of the present British representation in Russia?

Mr. McNEILL: His Majesty's Government are represented in Moscow in virtue of the Trade Agreement by an official British agent assisted by a staff of 13 persons, two of whom are resident in Petrograd. They are all British subjects. The annual cost of the mission is approximately £23,800.

AGENT IN GREAT BRITAIN.

Mr. GILBERT: 12.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Soviet Government of Russia
is at present represented in this country; if so, will he give the name of the representative and his official designation; whether negotiations take place with such representative in the same manner as with the ambassadors of other foreign countries; and if he will make any statement as to the exact position of the Soviet Government's representatives in this country?

Mr. McNEILL: In the absence from this country of M. Krassin, or of any successor to him, the Soviet Government is represented here by M. Jean Berzin as acting official Russian agent. The official Russian agent, who have no regular diplomatic status, is a. medium for communications between the Soviet Government and His Majesty's Government under the conditions laid down in the Trade Agreement of 16th March, 1921.

LAUSANNE CONFERENCE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what nations are being invited to attend the resumed peace conference, at Lausanne; whether the Government of the United States of America has been invited to attend and, if so, with what result; and for what reason the Russian Government was not invited to the resumed conference?

Mr. McNEILL: Notification of the resumption of the negotiations with Turkey at Lausanne has been sent by the Secretary-General of the Conference to Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Yougoslavia, Rumania, Belgium, the United States and Turkey. There is every reason to believe that the United States will be represented for the same purpose as on the last occasion. The Russian Government was invited to the original Conference at Lausanne only for the discussions on the future régime of the Straits. Those discussions will not be re-opened, since the Allies and Turkey are agreed upon the terms of the draft Straits Convention. Russia is not therefore being invited to participate in the present meeting at Lausanne.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How does the hon. Gentleman defend the invitation to Rumania and the non-invitation to Russia, which is a neighbour to Turkey?

Mr. McNEILL: The defence, if required, will be found in the answer I have given.

Captain BENN: 13.
asked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Soviet Government has been officially invited to the Lausanne Conference?

Mr. McNEILL: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I have just given to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull.

Captain BENN: Does the Foreign Office think that any stable settlement in the Near East can be accomplished without the agreement of Russia?

Mr. McNEILL: I do not think it would he very wise for me to express an opinion one way or the other at the present moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

ROYAL MARINES (AMALGAMATION).

Viscount CURZON: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed to give any compensation for disturbance to members of the Royal Marines who may be affected by the proposals of the Admiralty to amalgamate the forces?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Monsell): Officers and men who fire transferred to other divisions in consequence of the abolition of the Gosport division will have the removal expenses of themselves and their families paid. The details of the arrangements will he communicated to those concerned as soon as possible.

Viscount CURZON: Does this include the families and dependents of the officers and men who are being brought away from Forton? The housing conditions at Portsmouth are very difficult indeed, and it is impossible for these men to get the necessary accommodation.

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I have said that it covers the removal expenses of the families.

Viscount CURZON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said "to other divisions." Does he mean from Forton to Eastney?

BATTLESHIP CONSTRUCTION (TYNE).

Mr. GRATTAN DOYLE: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the work on the new battleships on the Tyne has yet been started: if not, what progress is being made in this direction; if he is aware that numbers of men are being dismissed from the Wallsend slipway and Armstrong's Naval Yard; and, if so, what immediate steps are proposed for the alleviation of unemployment in the Newcastle area?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Work on the battleship in question has been started and is proceeding in a, normal manner. I understand the discharges referred to are due to the completion of work on a merchant vessel.

Mr. DOYLE: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware of the intense disappointment and irritation in the district owing to the fact that the work which, it was expected, would be started, has not been started, and that discharges are taking place every day? Is he also aware of the amount of suffering and misery in the district caused by unemployment?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Once the Admiralty have given the contract, they have no more say in the matter as to how that contract shall be carried out. As far as the Admiralty are concerned, we could not do more than place the order for one of the battleships in this district.

Mr. DOYLE: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what is the cause of this inordinate delay?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: There is no inordinate delay, as far as I know. The firm carries on the work of the contract in its normal manner.

PROMOTION.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 19.
asked the First, Lord of the Admiralty the number of years able seamen are now serving before advancement to leading seamen the number of years served by leading seamen before advancement to petty officer; and the number of years served by petty officers before advancement to chief petty officer; which branches have automatic promotion; and how time served for advancement by those branches who possess automatic promotion compares with those branches whose advancement is by depot roster?

Commander EYRES - MONSELL: I should be obliged if my hon. and gallant Friend would repeat his question in a week's time, when I hope the information requested will be available.

ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS (DISCHARGE).

Mr. PRIVETT: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will explain the reason for the variation in treatment of engine-room artificers of H.M.S. "Fisgard" who recently applied for discharge; whether he is aware that, while one received his discharge unconditionally, another was given his discharge conditional on payment of a sum of -£75; will ho state the reason for this differentiation: and will he explain why, if £75 is demanded from a man applying for discharge, the same sum was not granted to those fifth-class engine-room artificers recently compulsorily discharged, instead of £20 paid to them?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Discharge of men or boys from the Royal Navy before the expiration of their engagements is permitted only in exceptional cases, and as a general rule only on payment, of purchase money on a scale laid down in the King's Regulations. The purchase money is based on the cost of training and the rate of pay. Free discharge is allowed only in those special cases where the necessary money cannot he raised for discharge by purchase. The first case mentioned by my hon. Friend was considered to fall within this category. As regards the last part of the question, no analogy can be admitted between the case of ratings granted discharge for private reasons and those whom it has been found necessary to discharge on special terms in order to avoid an excess on Navy Votes.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

ADMIRALTY.

Mr. J. DAVISON: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the highest figure reached in his Department for the employment of women prior to 1920 in the following civilian grades temporary typists and. shorthand typists; temporary clerks below the rank of junior administrative assistant; and temporary officers of junior administrative rank or over?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The total number of women employéd on the clerical staff of the Admiralty on the 11th November, 1918, was 3,720, which figure represents approximately the highest figure reached. It is not possible to classify this figure in the grades mentioned by the hon. Member without a detailed examination of the records of each member of the staff in question, which examination could only be undertaken by the diversion of staff from other urgent work.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (INSPECTORS' SALARIES).

Mr. GEORGE HIRST: 71.
asked the Minister of Health what are the salaries paid to inspectors of the Ministry of Health; and whether these salaries include travelling expenses and office accommodation?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): The hon. Member will find the scales of salaries paid to inspectors of the Ministry of Health set out in the current year's estimates. These scales do not include travelling expenses and office accommodation.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (COAL PORTERS).

Mr. DUNCAN: 92.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the officials of his Department have refused to discuss with the union representatives of the coal porters a complaint concerning their being put to work a normal week of 56 hours: whether the normal week for this class of employé is 48 hours by agreement with the Treasury; and whether he will take steps to see that these complaints are dealt with?

Major BARNSTON (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply. Representations from the coal porters in my right hon. Friend's Department regarding their working; hours have been discussed by the Departmental Whitley Council, on which the coal porters are represented. The working week of the men concerned is not 56 but 48 hours (or 44 if the state of business permits of a half-holiday on Saturday), exclusive of meal times. The working week of this class of employé, as fixed by agreement between the Treasury and the Workers' Union, does not normally include meal times. My
right hon. Friend is satisfied that there has been no breach of the agreement so far as his Department is concerned, and he sees no reason to take any further action unless the matter is again brought forward by the men's representatives on the Departmental Whitley Council.

EXPORT CREDITS DEPARTMENT.

Sir PARK GOFF: 99.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to extend the term of the operation of the Export Credits Department, which is due to terminate in September, in view of the dearth of new orders to exporters?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wolmer): No decision has yet been arrived at in the matter.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (WOMEN).

Mr. G. HIRST: 102.
asked the Minister of Pensions the highest figure reached in his Department for the employment of women in the following grades: temporary typists and shorthand-typists, temporary clerks below the rank of junior administrative assistant, and temporary officers of junior administrative rank or over; and at what period these, figures were reached?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tyron): I am circulating the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:


Grade
Highest number
Date.


Temporary Typists and Shorthand Typists.
1,405
1st Jan., 1923*.


Temporary Women clerks
11,200
1st Sept., 1919.


Temporary Officials
201
1st April, 1920.


* This date is explained by the fact that the staffs of Local Committees were taken into the direct employ of the Ministry during the latter part of 1922.

WAR OFFICE (WOMEN).

Mr. JOHN DAVISON: 106.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state what was the highest figures reached in his Department for the employment of women prior to 1920 in the
following civilian grades: temporary typists and shorthand typists, temporary clerks below the rank of junior administrative assistant, and temporary officers of junior administrative rank or over?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Gwynne): The figures in November, 1918, were


Temporary typists and shorthand Typists
902


Temporary clerks of junior administrative rank and over
200


Temporary clerks below that rank
6,334

LEGAL PROCESS.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: 84.
asked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to the comments made by members of the Court of Appeal on the unsatisfactory state of the law in regard to proceedings taken by and against Government Departments; and whether he will take the necessary steps to make the procedure more simple and uniform?

Mr. FRANK GRAY: 85.
asked the Attorney-General whether, having regard to the remarks of Lord Justice Scrutton, in the recent case of the Marshall Shipping Company, Limited, versus the Board of Trade, as to the necessity for legislation, in the interests of the public, to enable them to readily and conveniently call in question the actions and omissions of Government Departments, he will advise His Majesty's Government to initiate such legislation forthwith?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The whole question of proceedings by and against the Crown, and by and against Government Departments, is under the consideration of a Committee over which the Lord Chief Justice is presiding and of which I am a member. I will call the attention of the Committee to the Judgment in this case.

Sir K. WOOD: Can the Solicitor-General say whether in this case the Government Department did not plead that, in order to be successful in proceedings against the Board of Trade, every member of the Board, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, must be served with a process, and did not the Court of Appeal adversely comment upon the state of the law?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Member has stated something like the contentions of the case, but I have not before me at the moment the accurate information.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

UNCOVRNANTED BENEFIT.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will favourably consider a modification of the Regulations governing the issue of uncovenanted benefit, whereby single men who have already contributed at a higher rate to the Insurance Fund on account of the payment of uncovenanted benefit, and who will have to contribute to the repayment of these benefits as soon as they obtain employment, may receive part, if not full, uncovenanted benefit whilst unemployed, notwithstanding the fact that some other income is going into the house where they reside?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): As indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Seaham on 11th April, I am examining very carefully the conditions relating to the grant of uncovenanted benefit so far as they are within my discretion, It, would not be possible, however, to vary the rate of benefit in particular cases as the rate is fixed by the Acts.

Mr. THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman, during the consideration which he is giving to the matter, have regard to the fact that if he declines to sanction the payment of this benefit to single persons it will mean an extra charge on the rates of local authorities which are already overburdened?

Sir M. BARLOW: I may say quite frankly that considerations of that kind are present to my mind.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Will not these single men have to contribute in the future to the fund from which you are borrowing; and are they not entitled to uncovenanted benefit?

Sir M. BARLOW: The question of uncovenanted benefit, as has been stated over and over again, is at the discretion of the Minister acting in the public interest, and it is his business to give
such directions as he can within the ambit of the Regulation under the Act of Parliament.

STATISTICS.

Mr. FOOT: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons drawing unemployment benefit for the week ending 31st March; and the approximate amount paid by way of unemployment benefit?

Sir M. BARLOW: The approximate number of persons to whom unemployment benefit was paid during the week ended 31st March, 1923, was 940,000, and the amount paid was £770,000.

NECESSITOUS AREAS

Mr. GRUNDY: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that some of the urban authorities adjacent to the large towns which have been deemed necessitous have made efforts to provide work for the unemployed, paying for the-same out of the district funds, and have also been called upon to pay a consider-ably enhanced poor rate, largely for the benefit of the unemployed in the towns; and whether these authorities will be allowed to participate in the contemplated grants to the necessitous areas?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the efforts made by many local authorities to provide work for the unemployed. Provision of this kind has, of course, been generally assisted by Government grants made on the recommendation of the Unemployment Grants Committee. As regards the last part of the question, I can only say that the Government have given no undertaking as to the making of any special grants to necessitous areas.

Mr. GRUNDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these districts are doubly penalised for having found work for the unemployed, first by the increase of the district rate, in addition to the increase of the poor rate, which applies to the whole locality, and also by the fact that the Employment Exchanges are outside the districts and that it is very difficult for the small urban districts to improve their proportion of employment? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech! "]

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour what would be the
saving in establishments, salaries, and cost of buildings if all Employment Exchanges were done away with and the payment of unemployment benefits was handed over to some other agency?

Sir M. BARLOW: I am not aware of any other agency through which the administration of a national scheme of unemployment insurance, could he effected at lower cost than through the Employment Exchanges.

Sir C. YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the amount that it would be possible to save?

Sir M. BARLOW: If it cannot be done cheaper through any other agency, there would be no saving.

Sir C. YATE: May T say that is a matter of opinion?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member will have his Own opinion.

Sir WILFRED SUGDEN: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will cause inquiries to be instituted as to the grave difficulties arising through the Employment Exchange at Rochdale also operating on behalf of the districts of Meilmow, Nowhey, Firgrove, and Ogden: and if he will, under proper supervision, arrange that properly constituted industrial associations in the districts named function instead of the Rochdale. Employment Exchange, failing which will he have an Employment Exchange established in the centre of the above four districts?

Sir M. BARLOW: I am making inquiries locally at once, and will communicate the result as soon as possible to my hon. Friend.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman also take cognisance of the fact that these poor people are receiving medical attention as a result of the unsuitable methods of working of the Employment Exchange at Rochdale?

Sir M. BARLOW: That, of course, is a somewhat serious charge. I cannot deal with it until I have got the report. Directly I do so, I will communicate with my hon. Friend, and I will he glad if he will assist me in going into the matter.

COMMITTEE, RICHMOND (WOMEN MEMBERS).

Mr. GRUNDY: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that on
both the women's sub-committees and the main committee attached to the Richmond Employment Exchange there are only two women members, whereas on the former committee there are four men members; whether there is only one woman representing women workers; whether he is aware that, owing to the small number of women on the committee, recent action by the committee directed against his women staff at Kew was decided on in the absence of women members; whether unemployed women are ever put in the position of being dealt with by the councillor who has recently shown himself to be hostile to the employment of women; and whether efforts will now be made to add to the women membership of the committees concerned, with a view to the proper representation of women workers resident in the area?

Sir M. BARLOW: There is one woman member, a workers' representative, on the main committee. The women's subcommittee consists at present of three men members and two women members, one of whom is a workers' representative, and there is one vacancy for a woman for which a nomination from a workers' association has been invited. I am not aware that the representations recently made by the committee regarding the employment of women staff at the Claims and Record Office, Kew, were in any way influenced by the composition of the committee, nor can I accept the suggestion that any member of the Committee ought to be excluded from dealing with claims made by unemployed women.

Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state from what organisations have nominations been asked, and has he received any nominations up to the present?

Sir M. BARLOW: I cannot answer that question without notice. My hon. Friend knows it is difficult to decide, but we endeavour to consult the representative organisations in cases of this kind.

BARROW.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the grave condition of unemployment in Barrow and the fact that the conditioning of a few warships has only given very restricted employment, and in view also
of the fact that 8,000 men at least will be shortly liable to the operation of the gap system, he will state whether he is now able, by way of urgent relief, to take any steps of a practical and effective nature to induce the placing of any work or orders in the town?

Sir M. BARLOW: On account of the special circumstances at Barrow, I have approached various interests with a view to bringing additional employment to the town. The matter has also been under the consideration of the Cabinet Unemployment Committee. I regret that it has not so far been found possible to provide additional work on any extensive scale, but there are indications that the situation is improving slightly, and the hon. Member may be assured that all practicable steps will be taken to relieve the situation.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Has the Government any definite scheme under consideration beyond what the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned?

Sir M. BARLOW: I do not think I can carry the matter any further than I have done in my answer. The matter is admittedly one of great difficulty, arid nobody knows it better than my hon. friend. We are doing all we can in the matter, and beyond that I cannot make any definite statement.

Mr. T. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman making the same special effort to secure work for other necessitous areas as well as for Barrow?

RELIEF WORK, SHEFFIELD AND ECCLESALL.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 43.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state, as regards the Sheffield and Ecclesall Unions, respectively, what is the average weekly number of persons who have received unemployment relief during the, last three months; and what is the average, weekly number in each union who have been put to the three days' task work?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: According to information supplied by the clerks to the guardians of these Unions, the weekly numbers of persons who have received unemployment relief during the last three months are respectively 31,804 and 11,547. These figures include a number of dependants of persons receiving relief. The numbers of families relieved are
9,120 and 2,997. No task work has been required to be performed in the Sheffield Union. The average weekly number put on a three days' task in the Ecclesall Bierlow Union is 159.

Mr. PONSONBY: 70.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Sheffield and Ecclesall guardians have arranged with the corporation for work to be undertaken by applicants for relief in order to test whether such applicants were desirous of work; whether this arrangement has been sanctioned by the Ministry of Health; how many applicants have been so put to the test; and what are the numbers, respectively, of those who are work-shy, physically unfit, and satisfactory workers?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Ecclesall Bierlow Board of Guardians have, with my sanction, made an arrangement for a labour test of the nature referred to, and I am informed that the average weekly number required to perform a test is 159 No such arrangement has been made by the Sheffield Board of Guardians. I am afraid I have no information as regards the last part of the question.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: As there are only 159 a week, is not an invidious selection made for this test work?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of any invidious selection. The, selection is in the hands of the Board of Guardians.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing a small committee to consider this, and is he aware that there is very great indignation on the part of working men at the guardians degrading regular work to the level of test work in these institutions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I do not see any reason for appointing a committee. The whole point is whether the test work should be absolutely useless work, or work of some value.

Mr. LANSBURY: But is this not work which should be done by the employment of ordinary labour, and is it right to make a test for relief?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that this is not work which would be ordinarily done now, but some time in the future.

Mr. LANSBURY: It could be done by proper trade union labour.

RELIEF (RECOVERY).

Mr. BROTHERTON: 78.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that certain Poor Law guardians are suggesting employing professional rent and debt collectors to recover relief granted on loan to people distressed through unemployment; and whether this is done by order of his Department?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I am not aware of any such suggestions, and I have not issued any such Order.

Ex-SERVICE WOMEN.

Mr. HIRST: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour how many ex-service women registered as clerical workers at London Employment Exchanges between October, 1019 and October, 1920, and since that date, respectively?

Sir M. BARLOW: Separate statistics of the registrations of ex-service women are not available and I regret therefore that the information asked for cannot be given.

Mr. HAYDAY: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour how many ex-service women have been appointed to the temporary Civil Service through the Joint Substitution Board since its inception; and how many have been transferred from one department to another in order that dismissal might be averted, in each of the following grades: typists arid shorthand-typists, graded clerks, and junior administrative assistants and over?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Boyd-Carpenter): Separate figures are not available showing the numbers of ex-service men arid ex-service women respectively placed by the Joint Substitution Board in Government Departments. The number of applications received by the Board from ex-service women is very small, and in practically every case in which the Board has been satisfied that the ex-service claims of the woman entitled her to preferential treatment it has been found possible to appoint her to a temporary post. A detailed record has not been kept of the grades to which such women have been appointed.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

NATIONAL BUILDING GUILD, LTD.

Sir K. WOOD: 37.
asked the Minister of Health how many houses have been built by the National Building Guild, Limited, of Manchester, now in liquidation; the average price of such houses; and whether any part of their respective agreements with local authorities remain unfulfilled?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The number of houses completed up to the 1st April by building guilds under the State-Assisted Scheme is 1,900, and 301 remain unbuilt or unfinished. As the final accounts in regard to these contracts have not yet been made up. I am unable to give the average cost per house. Some contracts were not completed by the guild, and the local authorities concerned have made special arrangements for the completion of the houses.

Sir K. WOOD: Is it a fact that this company has defaulted in a large sum of money; and can the right hon. Gentleman give some estimate of what the amount may be?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must ask for notice of that question.

SHORTAGE, HATHENAGE.

Mr. CHARLES WHITE: 40.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the shortage of houses in the Bakewell rural district area, especially in the Hathenage district; whether he has inquired into the case of Mrs. J. T. Wiggett, who was ejected from her house on an order of the Bakewell magistrates at the instance of the Bake-well Rural District. Council; whether he is aware that Mrs. Wiggett and her seven children have had to seek refuge in the Bakewell Union Workhouse; that another child is expected shortly; and that there are many houses in Hathenage occupied occasionally as week-end houses; and whether some steps can be taken to provide the woman with a temporary home so that her child shall not be born in the union?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the shortage of houses in the district referred to. I understand that in the particular case mentioned by the hon. Member, the house was reported by the Medical Officer of Health as unfit for
habitation as long ago as March, 1921, and that the operation of closing and ejectment orders has been postponed from time to time until the 26th March, 1923. No appeal against the closing order was made to me by the owner, and the case is consequently not one in which I have any jurisdiction, but I shall be glad to consider any scheme that may be placed before me by the Rural District Council in question for alleviating housing conditions in the district.

Mr. WHITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the rural district council, inasmuch as this was before this House 18 months ago, on my question, and nothing has been done?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it should be necessary for me to make any representations, as there is no doubt that the rural district council will in due course put their proposals before me.

HOUSES PER ACRE.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 41.
asked the Minister of Health the additional sum required in rent each week to cover the extra cost of land required if 12 houses instead of 20 houses are planned per acre in both urban and rural areas?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Any figure based upon cost of land only would be misleading, as cost of development would enter also into the difference in rent required.

Mr. THOMSON: Is it not possible to give the figures and let us draw our own conclusions from the facts supplied by the Minister?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member only desires to know the difference in the cost of land, it merely involves a simple arithmetical sum, which I think he is perfectly competent to do.

Captain BENN: Is it the intention to go back on Lord Downham's pledge, that only 12 to the acre should be built?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of any such pledge.

BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).

Sir EDWIN STOCKTON: 42.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the desirability of printing and circulating, for the benefit of those building houses under the new Government
proposals, a complete list of prices of materials which can be regarded as average and fair and whether he will further consider the desirability of issuing such a list, weekly, so that the pubic may know what fluctuations there are and be able to ascertain why they are suggested?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I doubt whether any good purpose would be served by attempting to issue a weekly price list. The fluctuation in prices of materials will be considered by the Committee set up for that purpose, and their reports as to the facts will be published from time to time.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the Government proposed its housing scheme, the cost of materials has jumped up about 10 to 12 per cent.?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I am not aware of that.

Mr. LINFIELD: Is it intended to give the Committee any power to fix prices, or merely to report when they go up?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no power given to the Committee to fix prices.

Mr. TURNER: Would they have power to imprison these people who raise prices?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No.

Mr. AMMON: 63.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been directed to the action of the Cement and other Building Materials Trades Association in endeavouring to prevent the Public Authorities Mutual Supplies, Limited, which is a company formed upon: a mutual basis, from obtaining materials for the use of public authorities at fair prices so as to enable houses to be built and public works to be carried out at a. lower cost; and if he will consult the Law Officers of the Crown as to what proceedings, criminal or otherwise, can be taken to prevent, trade rings and combinations from unduly inflating the cost of necessary materials for these purposes?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information on the point raised in the first-part of the question. With regard to the second part, it will be one of the functions of the Committee I am setting up to report as to the extent to which in any case the price of building materials
appears to be unduly high by reason of the operation of any trade combination, and in the light of the Committee's reports, the Government will consider whether any action is necessary, and, if so, on what lines.

SUBSIDY.

Sir K. WOOD: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the many representations already made since the publication of the text of the Housing Bill, the Government will extend the subsidy to other than the smaller type of house?

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 82.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the desirability of making a State subsidy towards artisan house building apply to parlour houses so far as 15 per cent. of the entire number concerned?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it would be more convenient that the suggestions made by the hon. Members should be dealt with during the debate on the Bill.

Sir K. WOOD: May I take it from that that this matter is under further consideration by my right hon. Friend?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No; I hope my hon. Friend will not take it that I have said anything more than I have.

GOVERNMENT SCHEME.

Mr. WILLEY: 53.
asked the Minister of Health whether, since all houses subsidised under the Government scheme have to he completed by 1st January, 1926, he can give any idea of the number which he anticipates will be so constructed in the period, assuming that the fullest possible effort be made to take advantage of the facilities afforded?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it practicable to make an estimate of any value. I may say, however, that the average number of working-class houses built during the last four years was approximately 50,000 a year.

TOTNES.

Major HARVEY: 61.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, when the Ministry approved the plans of the 24 houses erected at Totnes under the assisted housing scheme, the advice of local representatives regarding the laying
of the floors with a view to preventing dry rot was overruled: that the floors were laid in accordance with the wishes of the Ministry, and that dry rot has now appeared in some of the houses; that a letter containing this information was sent to the Ministry of Health on 14th March, 1923, by the Totnes Town Council, no reply to which had been received on 11th April; and, in view of the impossibility of meeting the cost of repairs out of the 15 per cent. allowance, and of the increasing urgency of the matter on account of the evil effects of the dry rot upon the inhabitants of the houses, what steps he intends to take?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been drawn to the difficulty which has arisen in this case, and I have instructed an inspector to discuss the matter with representatives of the Council with a view to considering what action should be taken.

Major HARVEY: May I ask whether, in order to avoid a repetition of this sort of thing, the advice of the local authorities will be fully considered in future?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that a case of this kind is likely to arise again.

PLASTERERS.

Sir W. DAVISON: 65.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there is still a shortage of plasterers in the building trade; whether there is any difficulty placed in the way of men becoming plasterers and what steps have been taken to secure that an adequate number of plasterers will he available to meet the increased demand when the Government's housing scheme is fully in operation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: So far as I am aware, there is not at present any shortage of plasterers in the building trade, or any special difficulty in the way of recruiting men for this branch of the building industry. I understand, however, that the proportion of plasterers to other tradesmen is less than would be required to effect, a proper balance in the house building trade, but I hope that this want of balance will repair itself as demand increases.

Mr. McENTEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the trouble to find out
how many shareholders in the various building companies are described as gentlemen living on their means, and will he put some of these idle people into training as plasterers?

Sir W. DAVISON: Am I to understand then that there is no difficulty at all in a person learning the trade of a plasterer, if he so desire?

PARLOUR HOUSES (COST).

Mr. WILLEY: 75.
asked the Minister of Health the estimated annual liability to the State under the proposals set forth in his Housing, etc. (No. 2) Bill; whether his Department considered the extra liability which would have been entailed by making the inclusion of a parlour optional and compulsory, respectively; and whether, in that case, he can state what the increased estimated cost would have been?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would ask the hon. Member to await my statement on the Second Reading of the Housing Bill next week.

FLOOR SPACE (MEASUREMENTS).

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: 81.
asked the Minister of Health whether the rules for calculating the measurements of the floor space in houses proposed to be subsidised under the housing scheme have been drafted; and when they will be obtainable?.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A circular dealing with this matter is in course of preparation, and will be issued shortly

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (MEDICAL SYSTEM).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 39.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that the public generally are primaliy affected by any rearrangement of the panel system under the National Health Insurance scheme, he will appoint a representative committee to inquire into the working of the present system which shall include direct representatives of the approved societies and of insured persons: and that he will not sanction any rearrangement of terms before such an inquiry has been made?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As a result of discussion with the Insurance Consulta-
tive Council, it is not now contemplated that any general re-arrangement of the insurance medical system will be made. Certain modifications of the terms of services have been recommended by the Council, but these will not involve any substantial change in the present system. No ease has, in my view, been made out for a separate investigation of the kind suggested by the hon. Member, which would complicate the negotiations and so tend to delay a settlement.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Consultative Council, in the opinion of many approved societies and insured persons, does not adequately represent their point. of view?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no other body that does.

Mr. FAIRBAIRN: Will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider the desirability of consulting the insurance committees throughout the country on that matter, as representative bodies?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already answered that question.

Sir K. WOOD: 64.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in respect of the payment to doctors on the panels list, the Government Actuary has advised that at the end of the existing agreements it will be no longer possible for the present payment of 2s. 6d. per patient per annum to he made from the funds of the approved societies; and whether he proposes that any further contributions shall be made from State funds in connection therewith?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Government Actuary has given no advice on the matter referred to by my hon. Friend subsequent to that contained in his Report on the Financial Provisions of the National Health Insurance Act, 1922 (Cmd. 1631), a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the negative.

Sir K. WOOD: May I ask whether, in the Report to which my right hon. Friend refers, the advice suggested in the question is not given?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I think it is.

EGGS (PRESERVATIVES).

Mr. J. HOPE SIMPSON: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the import of liquid yolk of egg into the United States of America is absolutely prohibited on the ground of the excessive amount of preservative used in its preparation; whether any percentage limit of preservative is imposed by his Department as a condition of import and, if so, what that percentage is?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no definite information as to the first part of the question. The amount of boric acid preservative in liquid egg yolk imported into this country is not limited by any specific official Regulation, but the trade generally have agreed to restrict the amount used to 1.5 per cent.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that the more an egg is decayed the more boric acid it will take?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It would be too late to preserve if it was decayed.

Mr. J. H. SIMPSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the case of cream manufactured in England, we have to put on the package a certificate of the amount of boric acid in the material we sell, and is there any reason why this should not be extended to imported preserved liquid eggs?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In view of the agreement that has been come to, I think we might wait and see what happens.

Mr. HARDIE: What is the percentage of boric acid in the present Cabinet?

Mr. SIMPSON: 52.
asked the Minister of Health whether any shipments of liquid yolk of egg from China were rejected or condemned by his Department in the year 1922 owing to the excessive amount of preservative used, or for other reasons; and what steps, if any, are taken by his Department to ensure that preparations of such preserved yolk of egg are not used in food-stuffs to the detriment of the public health?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The seizure of unsound food with a view to its condemnation is not undertaken by my Department, but by local authorities, including port,sanitary authorities. I understand that about 200 tons of liquid yolk were dealt
with as unsound by the London authorities in 1922, but I am not aware whether any proportion of these consignments was condemned owing to an excessive amount of preservative. The arrangements made for the protection of the public against the excessive consumption of preservative due to the use of liquid egg are set out in a Circular issued to local authorities by my Department on the 20th ultimo. I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the setting up of a Special Joint Committee, with a view to the preparation of the many details connected with the forthcoming Imperial Conference, so that Members of both. Houses would be able to submit to such committee their considered views on various matters of interest to the Empire as a whole?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): I do not think that it is necessary to adopt the present suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend, but I would refer him to the reply given to the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Sturrock) on the 26th March by the Prime Minister, in which he stated that, if there were a general desire for a discussion in the House, he would consider whether it, would be possible to find time for it later in the Session.

Mr. STURROCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman say in what way we can best express the opinion that there is a general desire for discussion?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think any difficulty has ever occurred in the solution of that question.

COTTON INDUSTRY BILL.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the general acceptance by the House of Commons of the principle of the Cotton Industry Bill, he will give facilities for its passage through the House?

Mr. COLLISON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister, in view of Thursday's all-night
sitting preventing the presenting of the Cotton Industry Bill and of the importance of this Bill to the cotton industry, if he will arrange to give early facilities for this Bill to be discussed?

Mr. BALDWIN: As the hon. Gentle men are aware, the Cotton Industry Bill was read a. Second time on Monday last, and committed to a Standing Committee.

INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the present unsatisfactory position of this country with regard to Inter-Allied debts, he will be prepared to invite the nations concerned to a conference in order to settle definitely this question and to make arrangements for funding these debts; and whether he is aware that it is impossible to fix the amounts of reparations from Germany until the Allied countries have definitely agreed upon the amounts of debt they will be called upon to pay?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think that at present anything would be gained by a conference on Allied debts. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative; the amount of reparations to be demanded from Germany is the greatest possible payment she can make and this is net dependent on the amount of Inter-Allied indebtedness.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Does not the amount we are to have depend on whether we agree to fix the amount of Inter-Allied debts?

Mr. BALDWIN: It is quite possible that that might be a part of the ultimate solution.

RUMANIA (RELIGIOUS ORDERS).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether the British representative of Great Britain on the Council of the League of Nations has been instructed to bring before the Council the action of the Rumanian Government, which has suppressed in Transylvania all religious orders except the Rumanian order and has also passed a law enacting that Transylvanians and
the dwellers in Banat and Bukovina shall be ejected from their houses and property?

Mr. McNEILL: Questions relating to the rights of minorities in Transylvania are coining before the Council of the League of Nations, but not on the motion of the British representative.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

POSITION

Mr. C. WHITE: 51.
asked the Prime Minister, in view of the grave position of agriculture and the dispute in Norfolk, when he will be able to give a day to debate the position?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made on the Business of the House yesterday.

Mr. WHITE: As this is only the Agriculture Estimates, shall we be able to discuss the findings of the Interim Report of the Tribunal, and also questions of policy?

Mr. BALDWIN: That is a matter, of course, for the decision of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Mr. WHITE: Is it not fair that we should ask for a full opportunity, as we were denied a day last week, through circumstances known to the House?

POTASH

Dr. CHAPPLE: 95.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give an estimate of the amount of potash that would be used by farmers for manurial purposes if large quantities could be secured from Germany in the form of reparations on account and sold to those farmers who could use it to advantage at actual cost price?

Major BARNSTON: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to attempt the estimate for which the hon. Member asks. The amount of potash that could be profitably unemployed entirely depends on the prices of agricultural produce.

RATING BILL.

Major WHELER: 96.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when the Government's Rating Bill will he introduced?

Major BARNSTON: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make any announcement on this subject.

SMALL-POX.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: 54.
asked the Minister of Health whether his medical advisers have made any report in regard to the higher fatality rate which occurred amongst vaccinated, as compared with unvaccinated, cases of smallpox in England and Wales last year?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative. I may, however, say that 24 of the 27 deaths from small-pox in England and Wales last year occurred in the outbreak of virulent small-pox in London and the neighbourhood, and that in this outbreak the fatality rate was 23.7 per cent. in the case of vaccinated persons and 60 per cent. in the case of unvaccinated persons. The age of the youngest vaccinated person who died from small-pox was 43.

Mr. MARCH: 58.
asked the Minister of Health how many cases of small-pox were nursed at the Metropolitan Asylums Board hospital at Dartford from 1st July to 31st December, 1922; how many of the cases proved fatal; and what was the age of each patient?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Seventy-two cases of small-pox, of which 23 proved fatal, were nursed at this hospital during the period in question. I will send the hon. Member a statement giving the age of each patient.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

TUBERCULAR. CASES (VILLAGE SETTLEMENT).

Major CADOGAN: 56.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can give the House any further information as to the village settlement scheme for tubercular ex-service men, as recommended by the Barlow Report of 1918?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have this matter under consideration, and propose to discuss the question with representatives of the British Legion at an early date.

TRADE FACILITIES ACT.

Major CADOGAN: 98.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether preference in employment is given to ex-service men on all schemes guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Act?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: It is not possible to attach an absolute condition of this kind to guarantees under the Trade Facilities Act, but every effort is, in fact, made by the Advisory Committee to secure a preference for ex-service men.

Major COHEN: Why is it not possible?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I think it must be obvious to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, after all, that if credit is granted under the Trade Facilities Act to any individual film conducting its affairs upon highly technical grounds that it may not be possible to obtain the requisite number of ex-service men with the requisite technical knowledge to make the business a paying concern. It would, therefore, be impossible under these circumstances to lay down conditions.

OPEN SPACES, LONDON.

Mr. AMMON: 62.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the fact that the open spaces in Endsleigh Gardens and Mornington Crescent are advertised for sale; and whether the Government can interfere to prevent these spaces being built over and so depriving London of very necessary breathing spaces?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no authority to move in this matter, which is one, so far as Public Authorities are concerned, for the London County Council and the Metropolitan Borough Council.

Mr. AMMON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that quite recently the chairman of the appropriate Committee said he had no power—it lay with higher authorities?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of that, and I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will send me particulars.

WORKHOUSE REGULATIONS (FAMILIES).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 66.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will con-
sider the revision of workhouse Regulations affecting able-bodied men whose children are accompanying them in the institution; and is he aware that such a man as a general practice is not allowed to take his discharge and look for work unless he takes his children with him, whereas it would be more advantageous to the ratepayers only to keep the two children in question, instead of the three people?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that, as a general practice, leave of absence is readily given to any inmate of a workhouse who wishes to look for work, and I am trot at present aware of any necessity for a revision of the Regulations in question.

Sir W. de FRECE: Is it not a fact that the guardians themselves are objecting to this measure as being entirely out-of-date?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not sure that I understand to what measure my hon. Friend refers.

Sir W. de FRECE: The Regulations.

AMBULANCE SERVICE, LONDON.

Mr. BRIANT: 67.
asked the Minister of Health if he will nominate a committee to inquire into the adequacy and organisation of the ambulance system for London?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will make enquiries with regard to this matter, and if it should appear that any advantage is likely to result, I shall be happy to summon a conference of the various authorities concerned to consider the whole question.

INDUSTRIAL COLONY, DARENTH.

Mr. BRIANT: 68.
asked the Minister of Health how many inmates of the Darenth industrial colony for the feeble-minded under the direction of the Metropolitan Asylums Board were enlisted during the War; and how many of them, if any, subsequently returned to that institution?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am inquiring whether any information is available on this subject, and will let the hon. Member know the result of my inquiries.

VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS (GRANT).

Mr. GILBERT: 74.
asked the Minister of Health whether the whole of the £500,000 Parliamentary grant in aid of the voluntary hospitals has now been distributed; whether the grant will be repeated; and whether the Hospitals Commission, when the present grant has been distributed, will, in accordance with its reference, cease to act?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that up to the present the Commission have distributed £421,033. The Commission have not yet made any recommendation as to the necessity for any future grant, or for the continuance of some central body to act as a link between the local voluntary hospital committees.

Mr. W. THORNE: Has any statement been circulated showing how the grant has been distributed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I could not say offhand, but I will inquire.

ROAD CONSTRUCTION (PITCH AND TAR).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 76.
asked the Minister of Health what effect, if any, the invasion of the Ruhr by the French has had upon the prices of pitch and tar in this country; whether he is aware that local authorities in this country find it difficult to proceed with road construction owing to the high cost of such material; and whether, in view of these facts, he will take some steps to relieve the situation so far as the local authorities are concerned?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply. I am unable to state in what degree the rise in the price of pitch and tar is due to the occupation of the Ruhr. While regretting the inconvenience suffered by local authorities, owing to the increasing cost of these materials, I am aware of remedy that can he applied by the Government.

Mr. DAVIES: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the cost of pitch and tar has increased since the invasion of the Ruhr by 80 per cent.?

Colonel ASHLEY: I said I know of no remedy that can be applied by the Government.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the local authorities are taking the pitch and tar, and so preventing briquettes being made for this country from small coal?

POOR LAW RELIEF, EDMONTON.

Mr. BROAD: 77.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Edmonton Board of Guardians has recently reduced its scale of relief to such an extent that a maximum of 40s. per week only is allowed for a man, wife, and family, no matter how many children are dependent on them, and that this Board do not allow outdoor relief to single persons, even widowers who lost their sons in the War, or men broken in the War and who have no pensions; and whether he wilt take steps to secure that this scale shall be increased and that consideration shall be given to the cases of single persons?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed that this Board of Guardians has recently restricted the powers of their Relief Committees in the manner suggested, but that the Relief Committees are authorised to refer cases of special hardship to the Board itself for decision. I am not prepared to interfere with the discretion which is vested in the Guardians.

Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask whether this scale allowed by the Edmonton Board of Guardians is what is known as the Mond scale?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall have to look at that point.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (CONSTABLES).

Mr. TURNER: 88.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he will provide seating accommodation in various parts of the House and about the House for constables on duty when the House sits.after 11 o'clock at night?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply to this
question. As I have already explained in reply to previous questions, I think the preferable arrangement is for the constables to be relieved from their posts for an interval, and this is arranged when practicable.

FRANCE AND RUHR DISTRICT (BRITISH TRADE).

Mr. WILLEY: 97.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many complaints he has received from British firms whose business is seriously affected by the delays in transport and delivery due to the situation in the Ruhr and what new steps are now being taken to relieve their anxiety in view of the possibility of the increase of unemployment in this country?

Viscount WOLMER: The number of complaints received is over 600. His Majesty's Government are doing their utmost to arrange with the Allied Governments and the German Government terms on which contracts entered into by British traders before the occupation of the Ruhr may be fulfilled, but I regret to say that at the moment the deadlock continues.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

CLAIM (J. HENDERSON).

Mr. DOYLE: 101.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that ex-Private J. Henderson, 13, Honister Avenue, Newcastle-on-Tyne, has been examined by two doctors who certified that he was suffering from organic nervous disease (disseminated sclerosis) due to War service that these opinions were supported by the medical board but was not concurred in by the medical advisers to the Ministry: that on this ground alone his application for pension was disallowed; and whether, in view of these and other facts in possession of the Ministry, the ease may he reopened?

Major TRYON: After full consideration of all the available evidence my medical advisers were unable to regard the disability from which this man suffers as being connected with his service, which had ended some two and a half years before he first made claim to pension. The consequent decision of the Ministry rejecting the claim to pension was confirmed on
appeal by the independent pensions appeal tribunal, before which all the evidence., including the opinion of the medical board referred to in the question, was laid, and is now, therefore, final.

LIFE CERTIFICATES (ATTESTATION).

Sir W. SUGDEN: 103.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware of the difficulties arising through the regulations as to life certificates; and will he facilitate the procedure thereon in respect to ex-service men and women?

Major TRYON: I am glad to be able to inform my hon. and gallant Friend that the Treasury have agreed to my proposal that life certificates may be attested by any member of a war pensions committee, or accredited voluntary worker attached to committee, besides members of my advisory committee and the standing joint committee. This adds a very large number to the list of persons authorised to attest these documents, and will give greatly increased facilities to pensioners.

TROOPS (RUSSIAN ALLOWANCE).

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 109.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that certain Scottish and other soldiers who have fulfilled the necessary conditions have been denied Russian colonial allowance because, as the War Office states, their pay accounts have been destroyed; and whether he will take action to prevent private soldiers suffering in this way because of Departmental action over which they have no control?

Mr. GWYNNE: This allowance ceased over three years ago. In 1920 a general poster was displayed in all post offices and elsewhere stating that claims to emoluments must be put in within three months of demobilisation. Exceptional latitude was given in the case of this Russian allowance, but, more than two years after claims were due, authority was given for the documents to be destroyed, to save storage and staff. The documents of the Great War were exceedingly voluminous, and it was not possible to keep them indefinitely with due regard to economy.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

TEACHERS (REDUCTIONS),

Mr. LANSBURY: 110.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the House of Commons will have an opportunity of discussing Circular 1297, addressed to local education authorities and managers of special schools, recommending a drastic curtailment of the teaching staff; and if he is aware that many experts and social workers on behalf of children mentally afflicted are opposed to the cutting down of grants for this work?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): It will be open to hon. Members to raise this question, should they so desire, when the Board's Estimates are under discussion in Committee of Supply. On the general issue, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. Morrison) on the 1st March last.

SCHOOL, ATLOW (CLOSING).

Mr. C. WHITE: 111.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware of the great inconvenience and detriment to the education of the children caused by the closing of the school at Atlow, near Ashborne; and that the school is a modern building which the villagers did much by voluntary effort to erect; and whether he can reopen the school in the interests of the children of the district?

Lord E. PERCY: The Board gave careful consideration to all the circumstances of this ease before determining, upon the application of the local education authority, that the school was unnecessary within the meaning of Section 19 (1) of the Education Act, 1921. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the attendance of the 10 children in question at neighbouring schools will not involve great inconvenience or detriment to their education, and he regrets he is unable to reopen the matter.

Mr.WHITE: Does the Noble Lord know how far these children have to go to neighbouring schools, and is he aware that it is upon a requisition from the parents of these children that I am bringing this matter up to-day?

Lord E. PERCY: I understood that the children concerned live within the two mile radius of the new school to which they are going.

SANITARY INSPECTORS.

Mr. J. DAVISON: 79.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in sanctioning the appointment of a sanitary inspector in cases where, as a condition of the appointment, the officer has to defray his travelling and office expenses out of his salary, any consideration is given as to what would be a reasonable proportion of the salary devoted to such expenses in a district comprising a population of 10,165, if the officer is to discharge his duties efficiently: and, if so, can he state the result of such consideration in any particular case?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In a recent case, I approved an increase in salary of £30 per annum mainly on account of travelling expenses. Office expenses are usually defrayed by the local authority.

Mr. PARKINSON: 83.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the late Local Government Board in a memorandum, dated December, 1910, stated that the amount of the salary which should be paid to an inspector of nuisances will naturally vary with the circumstances of the district and of the appointment; that it should be sufficient, having regard to the conditions of employment, not merely to attract a competent man, but to induce him to remain in the service of the council; that the frequent change of sanitary officers, to which inadequacy of salary greatly conduces, is detrimental to administrative efficiency; that in large districts, particularly in rural districts, the efficient, discharge of the duties of an inspector of nuisances depends to a great extent upon the facilities which the officer possesses for getting about his district: and that in fixing the terms of an appointment the local authority should see that those terms do not afford any inducement to the officer to restrict the number of journeys which he undertakes in pursuance of his duties; and whether this represents the present policy of his Department?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the memorandum referred to, and it sub-
stantially represents the present policy of the Ministry with regard to appointments of sanitary inspectors.

SMOKE ABATEMENT.

Sir W. SUGDEN: 80.
asked the Minister of Health if he will give special research and scientific assistance to individual industrial firms who, desiring to limit to the very smallest limit the output of black smoke, not always being able to use electrical power, have not to the present time any engineering solution to such problem?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will gladly give what assistance is possible, having regard to the limited staff of the Department. The local council is the smoke authority, and application should be made to them in the first instance. I am advised that efficient stoking is one of the first requirements.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that there is better co-operation between industrial firms and his Department in respect to this matter as at present what is being done is purely academic and departmental?

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not the fact that you cannot expect industrial firms to do more than they are doing so long as you supply raw coal, and that no betterment can come until you treat the coal in the open before you use it by taking out the smoke, and selling the residues as ammonia and oil?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In regard to the first supplementary question the matter obviously concerns both industrial concerns and my Department and I have offered to do all I can. As to the second question, I think it is quite clear that if you remove all smoke from coal before you consume it there will he no smoke.

MUNICIPAL MOTOR OMNIBUSES.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 89.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport seeing that all motor omnibuses, whether owned privately, or by companies, or by municipal authorities, are under the Finance and Roads Act of 1920 taxed on the same basis for licence duty, why municipal undertakings are
the only ones upon which any direct charge may be made towards the cost incurred in any adaptation, alteration, reconstruction, or strengthening of roads or bridges which are used in common by private owners, companies, and municipal authorities?

Colonel ASHLEY: As I explained in my answer to the hon. Member on 27th March, municipal authorities are unable to operate omnibus services without Parliamentary sanction, but ever since 1914 it has been the policy of Parliament to impose a liability of this nature where a municipal authority proposed to operate an omnibus service outside its own area. The inclusion of the Clause makes it possible in some cases for omnibus services to be started on roads which would otherwise be unsuitable, which if proposed to be used by a private undertaking might have to be closed to omnibus traffic.

Mr. WILSON: 90.
also asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether he can supply a complete list of the decisions made by the Ministry since the Roads Act of 1920 came into operation under the Clause which is inserted in all municipal motor omnibus powers providing for a contribution by the municipal authority towards any cost which may be incurred in any adaptation, alteration, reconstruction, or strengthening of roads or bridges to which the powers apply; and whether he can give a list of the contributions known by the Ministry to have been made under the Clause?

Colonel ASHLEY: Three decisions have been given by the Minister of Transport on this point since the passing of the Roads Act, 1920. In the cases of the Colne Corporation v the Lancashire County Council and of the Cardiff Corporation v. the Monmouth County Council the decision was to the effect that no adaptation was necessary. In the ease of Walsall Corporation v. the Cannock Rural District Council, an award was made at the rate of £700 per mile. On the last part of the question I have no information.

INDIAN ARMY (OFFICERS PENSIONS).

Sir C. YATE: 112.
asked the Under- Secretary of State for India whether
Indian officers of the Indian Army who have been granted King's commissions for distinguished service are to count their full previous service as officers and half their service as non-commissioned officers for pension in the same manner as warrant officers of the British Service when promoted to commissioned rank, or what rules have been laid down on the subject?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The point was referred to the Government of India after it was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend last year, but the Secretary of State has not yet received their views. I will have their attention called again to the matter. I much regret the delay in affording the information.

METALLURGICAL COKE (EXPORTS).

Mr. HARDIE: 113.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he can inform the House what quantities of metallurgical coke have been exported from this country since 1st January, 1923; whether such exports show an increase compared with the previous year; and whether his Department has reason to believe that such increase is due to the occupation of the Ruhr?

Viscount WOLMER: The exports of metallurgical coke from this country for the first quarter of this year amounted to 489,237 tons, an average of approximately 37,600 tons per week. The average weekly rate over the whole of last year was 30,800 tons, but for the last quarter of last year it was 39,700 tons. It is therefore evident that the increase in the rate of export had started several months before the occupation of the Ruhr, and has actually been smaller in the first quarter of this year than in the last quarter of last year by over 2,000 tons a week.

Mr. HARDIE: Will the Mines Department take steps to keep this metallurgical coke in this country?

Viscount WOLMER: I am afraid that that would be an undue interference with trade.

TELEPHONE EXCHANGE (BELFAST).

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: 118.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the assistant traffic superintendent at the Belfast Telephone Exchange made a private call on a subscriber's line on the 11th January last; that the call originated at a vacant board at the Exchange, and that this gentleman alleged that jocose remarks were made to him, and on the following day singled out two operators in connection therewith; can he state why the officer in charge was not asked for a report on the incident until the 21st February, and will he indicate the nature of the report then made; and whether, in view of the nature of this statement and the emphatic denial of the operators, he will require the Postmaster-Surveyor to withdraw the unfavourable expression of opinion he has made in regard to these two ladies?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): The facts are as stated in the first part of the question. The officer in charge was questioned at the time, but stated that she was some distance away from the operators concerned. It is clear from the reports that one of the two operators committed grave irregularities; and I see no reason for taking exception to the Postmaster-Surveyor's warning that serious consequences would follow if a similar case of irregular working were definitely brought home to either of them.

WANDSWORTH GAOL (ATTACK ON PRISON WARDER).

Mr. MOSLEY: 119.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will inquire into the case of E. A. Taylor, late prison warder at Wandsworth Gaol, who it is alleged was the subject of a murderous attack by a convict while in discharge of his duties and was thereby permanently injured, and, as a consequence, is subject to epileptic fits; whether Taylor has ever received any compensation; and, if not, whether, as he is now destitute, with a wife and two children dependent upon him, he can see his way to grant this man some compensation?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for West Bromwich
on the 1st of December last, this case was the subject of an exhaustive medical examination in 1906 and has been frequently and carefully considered by my predecessors in office. I have recently myself reviewed all the evidence, and I cannot find any ground for questioning the conclusion previously arrived at that Taylor's condition could not be attributed to any injury received by him in the course of his temporary employment as a warder at Wandsworth Prison. I greatly regret this conclusion, particularly in view of the man's present circumstances, but it will be clear from what I have said that there is no ground upon which any payment of compensation from public funds could be justified.

Mr. MOSLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that this warder was severely injured in the course of discharging his duties, and does he now argue that there is no fund existing from which this man can be compensated?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Investigation distinctly shows that the present condition of this warder is not due to those injuries. I should be very glad to show the hon. Member further particulars about the ease, which is a very sad one.

Mr. MOSLEY: If it can be shown that these injuries were received while performing his duties, is there any fund out of which he can be compensated?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, I think there is such a fund if it can be shown that the injuries were inflicted during the performance of his duties, but I am not quite sure how that can be done in this case.

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY (INJURIES).

Mr. CAIRNS: 120 and 121.
asked the Home Secretary (1) if he is aware that 1,475 fatalities have occurred in the last 10 years in the shipbuilding trade of this country, and that the number of men injured during the last 10 years is 84,789 men: will he institute an inquiry at, once with a view of decreasing these figures to the lowest possible level;
(2) if he is aware of the dissatisfaction existing in the shipping industry building section at the way the staging is erected and of the way in which the ladders are
lashed; and, if so, will he see to the appointing of competent men to do that kind of work in order to save life?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The figures cited by the hon. Member correspond with those given by me in reply to questions asked on the 6th and 22nd of last month except that the figure for non-fatal injuries does not include cases arising in the years 1915 to 1919 for which, as I pointed out, no figures are available. As I stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Smethwick on the 12th of this month, I am about to appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into the circumstances and causes of accidents in this industry and to report what further measures for their prevention are desirable. I am aware that the arrangements adopted at certain works in regard to staging have been the subject of dispute between employers and workers, but so far as the Factory Department is aware, the requirements on the subject in the existing Regulations are complied with. Any proposals for the amendment of these Regulations will be a matter for consideration by the Departmental Committee.

Mr. CAIRNS: When will the Committee be set up?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As soon as possible. I have got the names of nearly all the members who have agreed to serve— I think all except one.

DECREES NISI.

Mr. F. GRAY: 86.
asked the Attorney-General whether he can inform the House the number of decrees nisi granted during the year 1922 in which the failure to comply with an order for restitution of conjugal rights was one of the grounds; and whether, since all such cases were confined to parties in affluent financial position, he will initiate legislation making this ground available to all or, alternatively, making this particular ground for divorce subject to special supervision and report by the King s Proctor?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am informed that no separate record exists from which the figures asked for in the first part of the question can be given. The suggestion that procedure for resti-
tution of conjugal rights is confined to parties in affluent circumstances is mistaken. Persons in poor circumstances including, I understand, persons eligible for assistance under the Poor Persons Procedure, are availing themselves now of the grounds of relief to which the question refers. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. GRAY: Can the record not be obtained easily, and published, so that we may be able to check the accuracy of these statements?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am advised not.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (CHAIRMEN OF GUARDIANS).

Mr. FOOT: 87.
asked the Attorney-General whether he is now in a position to state the decision of the Lord Chancellor upon the proposal that, the chairmen of boards of guardians shall be appointed to act as magistrates during their term of office?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The Lord Chancellor has given this question his careful consideration, and, after consultation with the Home Secretary and the Minister of Health, it has been decided to take no action.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Captain BENN: May I ask a question about the Business of the House. It has already been announced that on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House to-morrow night the Postmaster-General will make a statement in reference to broadcasting licences. May I suggest to the Patronage Secretary that that is a very inadequate opportunity to deal with this question; and is he prepared to put down a Motion prolonging the Debate after 11.30?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is not that I wish to make a statement on this question, but an hon. Member of this House has given me notice that he desires to raise the question of broadcasting to-morrow night, which he is quite entitled to do, and, in accordance with my duty, I shall be in my place and give such information as I can.

Captain BENN: I quite appreciate the courtesy shown by the Postmaster-General, but I should like to know whether, in view of the great interest taken in this subject, the Patronage Secretary could not arrange to prolong the Debate after 11.30.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Colonel Leslie Wilson): I am afraid it would be quite impossible to do that. I think the House sits after Eleven o'clock quite often enough. The obvious opportunity would be on the Post Office Estimates.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: May I also ask a question about the business for to-morrow? The Vote in Supply which has been put down is the Vote for the English Ministry of Agriculture. Scotland is not concerned in that. Vote at all. It has been suggested that a general discussion will be allowed on agricultural policy and I wish to ask how can the Scottish aspect be presented on an English Vote. If it is put down in that. way and a general discussion is allowed then I suggest to the Patronage Secretary or the Prime Minister or whoever may be responsible, that arrangements should be made to have a Scottish Minister on the Treasury Bench competent to answer the case for Scotland.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have consulted the, Chairman of Ways and.Means, and he says that, as far as the broad principles are concerned affecting both countries, it will be open to discussion by the Scottish Members, but he could not allow detailed questions about Scottish administration. Those must be put to the Scottish Minister.

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: Under the ruling you have just given on behalf of the Chairman of Ways and Means, is it not important that the Government should intimate to the House that the day promised a little time, ago for the general discussion on agriculture should still be granted by the Government for that purpose?

Mr. LAMBERT: Would it be in order to-morrow to discuss the Interim Report of the Economists' Tribunal upon the Agricultural Vote? I understood that some arrangement was to be made whereby the Chairman of Ways and Means would allow such a discussion, but I
understand that some objection has been taken. It would be a great convenience to those of us who hope to take part in the Agricultural Debate to know whether we should be allowed to discuss that Interim Report or not, because, as you are well aware, we could not discuss details of legislation, but could only discuss administration, upon such a Vote.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: In view of what the Chairman of Ways and Means has said through you, Sir, may I point out to the Government that, so far as Scotland is concerned, the Debate will be perfectly inadequate? There will be many questions with which we, who represent Scottish agriculture, will be unable to deal, and in these circumstances I venture to ask the Government not to have a general Debate on agricultural policy to-morrow, but to give to the House the day that was promised.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I think our view as to whether another day a will be necessary or not will largely depend upon whether we can discuss the Interim Report of the Committee to-morrow. If we can discuss that Report to-morrow, we can cover practically the whole of the general ground— I am not speaking of Scottish questions; but if we cannot discuss that Report we shall have to press for another day.

Mr. MACPHERSON: May I suggest that, we should first of all have the day that was promised, and not have first the discussion on the English Vote. We Scottish Members are very anxious to raise important points about Scottish agriculture. The difficulties of Scotland are just as great as those of England, and we feel that, if that Vote is taken to-morrow, Scottish interests will be almost entirely excluded.

Mr. SEXTON: May I, as an ignorant Anglo-Saxon, ask what is the difference between Scottish and English agriculture?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The one is Scottish and the other is English, and that is all the difference in the world.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think she matter must be left in the hands of the Chairman of Ways and Means to-morrow.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will it be in order to-morrow to discuss the Interim Report of the so-called "Economists' Committee "?

Lieut.-Colonel COURTHOPE: May I point out that, at the very commencement of that Interim Report, a statement is made as to the expenditure incurred by the use of shorthand clerks and others who, I understand, appear on the Ministry of Agriculture Vote?

Mr. SPEAKER: I must leave that to the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: In view of what has passed across the Floor of the House to-day, and not knowing what is or is not going to happen to-morrow before the Chairman of Ways and Means gets into the Chair, may I respectfully urge that it would be much more satisfactory if we settled now that there should be a day for the general Agriculture discussion, and that to-morrow's Debate should be devoted to the ordinary subjects which are discussed in Committee of Supply, the strike in Norfolk, and other matters of that description? I suggest that it be definitely settled now that we shall have another day for the Agriculture discussion.

Mr. LAMBERT: May I ask the Patronage Secretary, or whoever is responsible for Government business, whether it would not be possible to-morrow to put down a Vote similar to that which was tint down last Wednesday, so that, instead of the Ministry of Agriculture Vote, we might have a Motion for the Adjournment of the House upon which the whole Agriculture question could he dealt with?

Colonel WILSON: I am very sorry that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is not here, as he did not know that this question was going to be raised. It is really very essential that we should get on with Supply. To-morrow is a Supply day, and I do not think it would be possible for the Government to depart from the position which has already been announced to the House. It is certainly hoped, however, and I believe it is the general wish and desire of the House—and, if that be so., I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means will be willing to meet the wishes of the House— that there should be as wide a discussion as possible on the Vote that has been put down for to-morrow.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: That does not meet the case of Scotland at all.

NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.

On this day four weeks, to call attention to the position of Pre-War Pensioners, and to move a Resolution—[Mr. J. Robertson.]

MINERS.

On this day four weeks, to call attention to the condition of the Miners, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. John.]

PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNALS.

On this day four weeks, to call attention to the working of the Appeal Tribunals under the Ministry of Pensions, and to move a Resolution.— [Mr. P. Martin.]

MINISTERS (FACILITIES) BILL.

Captain THORPE: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to facilitate the discharge of the duties of His Majesty's Secretaries of State or other Ministers.
If I may, I will read the short Clause which is the effective Clause of this Bill. The Bill provides, by Clause 1, that
 Where any Member of the House of Lords or of the House of Commons holds office as fl Secretary of State or other Minister to His Majesty, in his capacity as Secretary or Minister, and for the effective and proper discharge of his duties as such Secretary or Minister he may, if he be a Member of the House of Lords, address the Members of the House of Commons in their place and answer therein questions in respect of and concerning the duties of his office; and, similarly, he may, if he be a Member of the House of Commons, so address the Members of the House of Lords and answer in that place all such questions as aforesaid.
The saving Clause which appears to be necessary is as follows:
 Provided that no such Secretary ca. Minister shall so address the Members of the House of Lords or of the House of Commons, or shall answer such questions as aforesaid, except under such Rules and Orders of Procedure as the Members aforesaid may consider needful for the protection of and in accordance with the established privileges of their respective Houses.
Nothing in this Act shall diminish the existing rights and privileges of either House of Parliament except in so far as has been set out hereinbefore.
This is a form of constitutional practice which is already largely in vogue in the
Constitutions of the Latin peoples. It is a constitutional practice in France, Spain, Belgium and our own Colonies, and in the Assemblies of the Union of South Africa. The Bill strives to remedy what, appears to its promoters to be a striking weakness in our present constitutional practice. Under the present system, at the present moment, we have no less than six Ministers of State in the House of Lords. In the course of their duties, they owe direct responsibility to the Members of this House. In the pursuit of those duties, from time to time they have to enunciate policies of great and wide importance, and under the present system they are represented in this House, let me say, by extremely able men, but not by men who were chosen for the office or who owe direct responsibility to the people. Hon. Members will remember occasions on which they have prayed for the head of a Minister in the other place on a hypothetical charger in this House. The criticisms and suggestions which are given to them in their office are merely passed on the next morning by print or by word of mouth. They live apart from us. I think I shall not he incorrect if I remind the House that since 1910 it has been the expressed desire of every party to reform the House of Lords, and that reform is always intended to take the line of making it more democratic. Promises and hopes in political life are frequently deferred, and, anticipating that no such step will be taken, at any rate, in this Session, the promoters of this Bill suggest that by this short Measure we may do something to bring the Ministers who are responsible to the people down here or to send them up to the other Chamber in order that they may learn directly from the mouthpieces of the people what the people want.
There will be many criticisms in practice, but the Bill provides that when Noble Lords come to visit us or when we go to visit them proper provision will be made under the Standing Orders of each Chamber, I almost say for the behaviour, but at any rate for the position and conditions under which these Members speak. The promoters believe that such a Measure can do no harm. They believe that by bringing Ministers into this
Chamber—[Interruption]. I am sure that my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Kirkwood) who interrupts me will be the first when he is in another place to take advantage of this Measure, and, anticipating a contingency so remote but so obviously practicable, I look forward to the welcome which that hon. Member will receive. In the firm belief that this. [...] will do a great deal to command and increase confidence among the people for their constitutional Chambers, that it will do Ministers no harm to be told directly what our views are, and that thereby we shall have a more practicable system and a system under which Ministers—I refer to the preamble—will have greater facility in discharging the responsibilities of their office, I ask the House to give me leave to introduce it.

Mr. PRINGLE: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member rise to oppose the Motion?

Mr. PRINGLE: Yes, Sir. When I saw the Order on the Paper in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend, I was in some doubt as to the exact object. I wondered whether his intention in proposing this Bill was to anticipate the probable difficulties of a future Labour Government by assuring its Members of the right to speak in another place, or whether it was to relieve the present and very temporary embarrassment of the existing Government. The speech to which we have just listened indicates that what the hon. and gallant Member has in mind is no great constitutional change, but simply a means of relieving the embarrassment which the present Ministry undoubtedly feel. My hon. and gallant Friend spoke naturally in commendation of the virtues, the abilities, and the brains of the understudies who appear from time to time on that Front Bench. The House had some experience the other night of the result of an understudy. It is true that his chief is here in person, but, even under these conditions, the Government was reduced to a rather embarrassing position. Because the present Government has constituted itself, partly from necessity, to such a large extent of Members of the House of Lords, it seems to me to be no reason why Parliament should legislate for giving these Gentlemen, distinguished as they are, an opportunity of speaking in this House.
We have at the present time what has been unknown certainly for 40 years; we have four Secretaries of State in another place, and, in addition, we also have the Secretary for Scotland in another place. That is flouting the democracy of this House, and the Bill, leave for the introduction of which is now asked, would be merely a means of sanctioning such an abuse of our constitutional system. There is, as it is, a provision on the Statute Book indicating that the rights of another place should be safeguarded, because it is provided that at least one Secretary of State should be a Member of the House of Lords. That is a sop to the House of Lords. Why should we give them this other sop of allowing Noble Lords to come here and talk on various subjects and answer different questions? There are enough on the Front Bench as it is; and it would be a pity that the somewhat novel authority which the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) enjoys, should be in any way interfered with. The same equally applies to the Under-Secretary of State for War (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) and the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore). Would it not be a tremendous loss to this House, for example, if we were not allowed to hear the hon. Gentleman who represents the Colonies, but had to submit to the

saporific eloquence of the Duke of Devonshire? I do not think that would be an improvement even in the interests of the Government.

After all, why should we legislate for a few weeks or a few months? The order has gone forth that this Ministry's days are numbered. Has Mr. Garvin not said so, and not only Mr. Garvin, but Lord Riddell, the proprietor of that highly popular and intellectual publication, the "News of the World "; and, I believe, also the "Sunday Times," the "Sunday Times," mark you, after the editor had only two nights before dined with five Cabinet Ministers? If you have such unanimity in the most influential organs of the Sunday Press as to the longevity of His Majesty's Ministers, I think it absolutely unnecessary to give leave for the introduction of this Bill, and I hope, in view of the circumstances which I have now disclosed to my hon. and gallant Friend—I believe for the first time—that he will not persist. in asking for leave to do so.

Question put,
 That leave he given to bring in a Bill to facilitate the discharge of the duties of His Majesty's Secretaries of State or other Ministers.

The House divided: Ayes, 100 Noes, 244.

Division No, 100.]
AYES.
[4.10 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gould, James C.
Remnant, Sir James


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Astbury, Lieut-Com. Frederick W.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Halstead, Major D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bella[...]rs, Commander Carlyon W.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Harrison, F. C.
Skelton, A. N.


Brass, Captain W.
Hawke, John Anthony
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hay, Major T. w. (Norfolk, South)
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)


Bruford, R.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle. E.)
Sparkes, H. W.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hughes, Collingwood
Stewart, Gershorn (Wirral)


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth


Butcher, Sir John George
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Chapman, Sir S.
Lumley, L. R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Churchman, sir Arthur
Manville. Edward
Titchfield, Marquess of


Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman
Margesson, H. D. R.
Tubbs, S. W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C K.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Cope, Major William
Mercer, Colonel H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Wallace, Captain E.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Wells, S. R.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Willey, Arthur


Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Pease. William Edwin
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Penny, Frederick George
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Perring, William George
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Ednam, Viscount
Philipson, Hilton



Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Preston, Sir W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Privett, F. J.
Captain Thorpe and Lieut.


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Rae, Sir Henry N.
Commander Kenworthy


Gilbert. James Daniel
Reid, Capt. A.S.C.(Warrington)



NOES.


Adams, D
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
O'Grady, Captain James


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Oliver, George Harold


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Paling, W.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Allen, Lieut.-Col. sir William James
Harbord, Arthur
Pattinson, R. (Grantham)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Hardie, George D.
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Hartshorn, Vernon
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Attlee, C. R.
Harvey, Major S. E.
Phillipps, Vivian


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hayday, Arthur
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Potts, John S.


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Bonn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Herriotts, J.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Berry, Sir George
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Richards, R.


Blundell, F. N.
Hinds, John
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bonwick, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Ritson, J.


Bowdler, W. A.
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Briant, Frank
Hopkins, John W. W.
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Houfton, John Plowright
Rose, Frank H.


Broad, F. A.
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Bromfield, William
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Brotherton, J.
Hudson, Capt. A.
Salter, Dr. A.


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Hume, G. H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Scrymgeour, E,


Buckle, J.
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Sexton, James


Burgess, S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Burnie, Major J, (Bootle)
Irving, Dan
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Cairns, John
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Jephcott, A. R.
Simpson, J. Hope


Cautley, Henry strother
Jodrell Sir Neville Paul
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sinclair, Sir A.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Chapp[...]e. W. A.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Snell, Harry


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spender-Clay. Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Collison, Levi
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kenyon, Barnet
Stephen, Campbell


Crook. C. W. (East Ham, North)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Thomas, Rt, Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Kirkwood, D.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lamb, J. Q-
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Duffy, T. Gavan
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Duncan, C.
Lansbury, George
Thornton, M.


Dunnico, H.
Leach, W.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Ede, James Chuter
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Turner, Ben


Edge, Captain Sir William
Linfield, F. C.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edmonds, G.
Lorlmer, H. D.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Warne, G. H.


Ellis, R. G.
Lunn, William
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Webb, Sidney


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
M'Entee, V. L.
Wedgwood, Colonel Jos[...]ah C.


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
McLaren, Andrew
Weir, L. M.


Fairbairn, R. R.
McNeill. Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Welsh, J. C.


Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Fildes, Henry
March, s.
Wheatley. J.


Foot, Isaac
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, E.)
Whiteley, W.


Furness, G. J.
Maxton, James
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Williams. Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Moore. Major-General Sir Newton J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gosling, Harry
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Leslie O. (P'tsm'th.S.)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morris, Harold
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Winterton, Earl


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Mosley, Oswald
Wintringham, Margaret


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Muir, John W.
Wolmer, Viscount


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Murchison, C. K.
Wood. Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Murnin, H.
Wright, W.


Grigg, Sir Edward
Murray, hon. A.C. (Aberdeen)
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Groves, T.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy. T. W.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)



Guest, Hon. C. H. (Bristol, N.)
Nall, Major Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Newbold, J. T. W.
Mr. Pringle and Captain Viscount


Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Curzon


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Nichol, Robert



Question put, and agreed to.

BASTARDY BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Friday, 15th June, and to be printed. [Bill 95.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee C (during the consideration of the Merchandise Marks Bill): Mr. Murrough Wilson.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Performing Animals Bill): Mr. Bridgman; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Special Constables Bill): Mr. Edward Grenfell; and had appointed in substitution: Colonel Lambert Ward.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

1. "That, in the case of the River Weir Watch Bill [Lords], Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."
2 "That, in the case of the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway, Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties he per-
2074
mitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."
3."That, in the case of the Seaham Harbour Dock, Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 17th April.]

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

Question again proposed.
 That it is expedient to amend the law relating to the National Debt, Customs, and Inland Revenue (including Excise), and to make further provision in connection with Finance.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Practically every speech which has been delivered in the course of this Debate has been prefaced by the offer of congratulations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the lucidity and conciseness of his Budget speech, and I should like to associate myself with these congratulations upon the remarkable features of that speech which called forth these congratulations, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that my congratulations are not less sincere because they are somewhat belated. I regret that I am not able to extend my commendation to the actual proposals which he submitted to the consideration of the Committee. I had hoped, from speeches which he has been delivering in the country during the last, few weeks, showing that he was a sound economist and financier, that when he disclosed his Budget statement I should find that he had resisted the temptation, to which every Chancellor of the Exchequer is exposed, of sacrificing sound finance to political expediency. I was not disappointed in the earlier portions of the statement and I was feeling that if I were called upon to speak when he sat down I should have no criticism to offer, but only the pleasant duty of expressing my cordial agreement. But alas as the speech went on, I discovered that my financial idol had feet of day, and that the right hon. Gentleman had not been able to resist the temptation of which I have spoken.
So far the Debate upon this Budget has been confined almost wholly, and quite properly, to a discussion of the relative merits of an immediate policy of debt reduction or tax reduction. A very great change, as far as the expression of opinion is concerned, has come over commercial
and some financial opinion in the country upon these two questions during the last two or three years. Two or three years ago even the Federation of British Industries was urging the absolute necessity of concentrating upon debt reduction. Although I was not a Member of the House at the time, I believe hardly any voice was then raised in support of the policy of tax reduction as an alternative to debt reduction, which now appears to be much more popular.
The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir R. Horne) is now an out-and-out tax reductionist, and yet he himself, less than two years ago, was responsible for the issue of a Treasury circular in which the opinion is expressed that the expenditure of the country in future must be debited by at least £100,000,000 a year towards the reduction of debt. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain) also said about that time that he regarded the provision of £100,000,000 as a sum about which no one could complain, and he was Chancellor of the Exchequer at a time when a proposal was submitted, at the urgent request of the advisers and experts of the Treasury, who were appalled at the magnitude of the National Debt, for the consideration of a Committee of the House for the special taxation of wartime made fortunes as a means of effecting an immediate and very considerable reduction of the National Debt. That proposal was not approved by the House of Commons. It was said at the time that it could not be approved by a House of Commons "full of hard-faced men who had done well out of the War." That observation is no reflection upon this House, because this is a newly elected House.
The Liberal party in the last Parliament were as strong as the Federation of British Industries; and the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain) were quite as strong in realising the urgency of this question of a considerable reduction in the Natonal Debt. In those days Liberals were in favour of a capital levy. The Liberal party in the last Parliament actually brought forward a Motion urging the adoption of a capital levy, and that was supported by their leader. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name! "] It was supported
by speech and by vote by the then acting Leader of the Liberal party, Sir Donald Maclean.

Mr. STURROCK: No.

Mr. SNOWDEN: It was.

Mr. STURROCK: On a point of Order—

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am not going to give way to the hon. Member. The records of the House will prove the accuracy of my statement.

Mr. STURROCK: On a point of Order—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member rising to a point of Order?

Mr. STURROCK: May I claim that we ought to be allowed to have the name? May I ask the hon. Member for the name of the Liberal leader who supported the capital levy?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I have given the name. There was an almost unanimous feeling as to the importance of a considerable reduction of the National Debt. That opinion was held by members of the Government responsible for the finances of the country, by leaders and members of all parties, and by representatives of the great industrial organisations. May I add in this connection that one of the greatest and ablest of our captains of industry advocated the capital levy at that time as a drastic surgical operation to deal with a serious evil. How is it that in two or three years' time the expressed opinions appear to have changed so much in regard to the urgency and value of debt reduction and tax reduction? I have heard or read all the speeches that have been delivered, and I have not heard one word of explanation for the, reason of this change of opinion.
In the absence of explanation on the part of those who have changed their opinion it is not for me to suggest au explanation, but if I were called upon to do so, I would say that the explanation possibly is to be found in a change of opinion in regard to the effect of deflation. If that be the case, it does not reflect very much credit upon those who
were advocating so strongly the policy of deflation two or three years ago, because they must have known what the consequences of deflation would be. Everybody knows that you cannot have a high state of inflation and begin to deflate without incurring certain consequences of a rather disagreeable character during the process of recovery. I do not think that those who are now opposing debt reduction, or a great many of them, have any reason to be really dissatisfied with the effect of deflation. Holders of securities have not. It has added hundreds of millions to the capital value of their investments. The same thing has happened in regard to the investments of industrial corporations, industrial concerns and municipal corporations. The appreciated value of investments during the last two or three years must run into four figures in millions. Therefore, the consequences of continuing this policy has meant a capital appreciation of investments by £1,000,000,000, and it may he £2,000,000,000. I offer this as a possible explanation of the change of opinion, in face of the complete silence as regards explanation from those who have changed their views.
The matter at issue in this Debate is between those who still believe that debt redemption is a sound policy and those who do not. The right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young) and the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Sir A. Mond) belong to what I might call the school of charwoman economists. The right hon. Member for Norwich wrote a book on national finance, which was issued during the War, the whole point of which was to emphasise the danger of the maintenance of a huge National Debt. He said the accumulation of national debt is a certain road to bankruptcy. Now, the right hon. Gentleman, like the right hon. Member for West Swansea, does not care about debt at all—it does not matter. They appear to see some national advantage in the existence of a huge National Debt. I suppose they argue something like this: "It does not cost the country anything: it is true that we tax the people to pay interest upon it, but that interest is paid over to other people, so there is really no loss at all." I suppose these two right hon. Gentlemen think that the country may be made prosperous or kept
prosperous by taxing one set of citizens and handing over the proceeds to another or, to some extent, to the same class of citizen. That is what I meant by describing these right hon. Gentlemen as belonging to the school of charwomen economists. They apparently believe that the nation can be made rich by our taking in each other's washing. I should be sorry to think that the right hon. Member for Norwich and the right hon. Baronet the Member for West Swansea have many supporters in holding these views of indifference in regard to the huge National Debt which we have upon our shoulders.
As between others who differ as to the relative advantage of immediate debt reduction and of immediate tax reduction, there is really very little difference of opinion when you get down to the root of the matter. It seems to me that the fallacy of those who are advocating tax reduction lies in this fact, which was apparent in the speeches of the right hon. Member for Norwich and the right hon. Member for West Swansea, that they do not appear to realise that you cannot have tax reduction on sound economic lines so long as this huge National Debt exists. That is the point at issue in this controversy, and, before giving the Labour point of view in regard to it, I should like to say, and I think everybody will agree with the point I am going to make, that there ought not to be either debt reduction or tax reduction except out of a real surplus. Especially there ought to be no tax reduction out of a mere temporary or adventitious surplus. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees with me upon that. What I mean is, that there ought not to be tax reduction by accident such as has happened this year, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer might find himself in the position that he would not have the remotest possibility of any repetition of that in the next financial year. It would be criminal financial policy to carry out tax reductions upon such a flimsy basis as that. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that. Therefore I want to consider, for the moment, the Budget from that point of view. The right hon. Gentleman has justified his tax reduction upon an estimated surplus of £36,000,000, but all he expects during the current year is not
recurring revenue. Therefore the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, that the tax remissions during the present year are from revenue which will not be available in the succeeding years, and these remissions of tax do not fully mature during the coming 12 months. His position, in reference to next year, should he occupy his present position then, will be that he will have an increased expenditure of £50,000,000 without any revenue that can be seen at the moment to meet that expenditure.
I am not indulging in prophecy. We had a dissertation yesterday afternoon on prophecy and prophets by the right hon. Member for Paisley, who did not emerge very well during the earlier part of the week in regard to the prophecy in which, I understand, he indulged 12 months ago. I am a somewhat younger man than the right hon. Gentleman, but if he were present I would venture, with the greatest respect, to say to him that he might very well act upon the practice of this somewhat younger man. I have always adopted the practice, with regard to prophecy, of never prophesying unless I am certain, and that is the safest way of establishing a reputation as a prophet. Therefore, I am not going to prophesy except in regard to admitted and ascertained facts. It may he that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to some extent doing what the Chancellor of the Exchequer did last year, and gambling on prosperity. I am going to say nothing about that, but he himself dropped a hint that he expected next year a reduction in the yield of Income Tax, and the reason given was that the good trading year 1919–20 would be replaced, in the average, by the poor year, 1922–23.
On that point may I venture an opinion. This is no prophecy and it is not always wise to generalise from particular cases, but I follow with interest the financial pages of our newspapers and I wonder if the impression given to hon. Members is the same as has been given to me when reading the companies reports for 1922 published during the last few months. My impression is that 1922 was a much better year than 1921, and that is supported by an analysis of the dividends declared during 1922, which show that the average amount of dividend was about 1 per cent. higher than in the
corresponding period for 1921. However, be that as it may, I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not expect that he will be able to pay his way in the year after this unless he is able to get some additional source of revenue. His reference to the Betting Tax proves this.
Little has been said in the course of this Debate about the Betting Tax. I confess that I have heard with dismay, amounting almost to horror, the expressions of sympathy by the right hon. Gentleman in favour of a tax on betting. Has this great country come to this: have our resources in moral and legitimate forms of taxation become so exhausted that a Chancellor of the Exchequer must have recourse to patronising, legalising, making respectable what is perhaps the second greatest curse of this country, a curse which is every week ruining homes and blighting promising careers? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows little of the outbreak of moral indignation which would occur in this country if Government or Parliamentary sanction should be given to, or even if the proposals should be put forward by a Cabinet for a tax on betting. But if his foreboding is realised, then next year he will not be in a position to finance the tax reductions he has given without additional taxation. Seeing that that is so, I agree with the statement of the right hon. Member for Paisley that in view of this it would have been much better had the right hon. Gentleman not given these remissions of taxation during the present year.
The burden of the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea was that the possibilities of reduced expenditure are not exhausted. The right hon. Baronet paid a very great and well-deserved tribute to the financial knowledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer certainly knows more than the right hon. Baronet about the possibilities of further reduction of expenditure in this country. The right hon. Gentleman in his Budget speech told us:
 I can see many directions in which it may be necessary to incur increased expenditure. I cannot see so many in which I can be certain of reduction. Yet how can I make reductions in taxation—the full effects of which would naturally only
be felt next year—unless I can assure my position for the future? 
5.0 P.M
And the right hon. Gentleman said, and I think said accurately and with wisdom, that the reduction of interest on War Debt, that is the amount that we have to pay as interest on the National Debt, was the only real way in which we could ultimately get any considerable reduction of expenditure. The right hon. Member for West Swansea talked at large about the possibilities of huge reductions of expenditure, but he never once condescended to indicate where a single £1 of savings could be effected. But the right hon. Gentleman has upon the Motion Paper of this House at this moment a Motion which asks the House to declare in favour of prosecuting with vigour far reaching schemes of social reform. How is the right hon. Baronet going to finance these far reaching schemes of social reform? I suppose that he thinks that they would be financed in the same way as his reductions of taxation can be effected, that is without providing the money to do it. That is the only explanation that can be afforded for the extraordinary statement made by the right hon. Baronet in regard to the possibilities of further reductions. He has said that the foundation of finance must be the spending of less money. In reply to that, may I refer him to the greater wisdom of a remote but still well remembered ancestor of the right hon. Gentleman, who said:
 There is that scattereth and yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty.
All depends upon the purpose to which the expenditure is devoted. We are all opposed to useless wasteful and extravagant expenditure, but there is no kind of expenditure which can be incurred which brings such a good return to the community, and therefore to the individuals who constitute that community, as wise State and municipal expenditure. Where is this huge reduction of taxation, and the still further reduction of taxation which the right hon. Gentleman is pressed to give, to come from? I see on the benches opposite the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. W. Greenwood). The hon. Member introduced to a Government Department, a week or two ago, a deputation representing the spinning trade of Lancashire. The object of the deputation was to press on the Board of Trade the need for a great reduction of taxa-
tion as a means of improving the great industry with which these gentlemen are connected, and they made the great demand upon the Government for a reduction of 3s. 6d. in the pound in the Income Tax. £180,000,000 of reduced taxation was the figure which was mentioned.£180,000,000 represents a reduction of 3s. 6d. in the Income Tax. This utter nonsense is being talked by people who, without any knowledge at all, are making demands for a further reduction of taxation. There is only one real way in which you can bring about any great improvement in the way of reduced taxation, and that is by dealing with the main cause of high taxation, which is the £300,000,000 a year or more which have to be raised to pay the interest on the National Debt. One might think from the criticisms that have been made against the Labour party during these Debates that we are not in favour of lower taxation. We are in favour of lower taxation. What is the object of the proposal we put forward for a levy on capital, except to reduce the amount of Debt and thus to reduce the amount of taxation necessary to pay the interest on that debt? The only difference, if we would only understand each other, between those who are demanding a reduction of taxation without regard to the Debt, is that we realise that you cannot reduce taxation till you have reduced the Debt, and therefore the first thing is to tackle the Debt in a thorough manner.
We agree with what has been said by the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) about the way in which a very high Income Tax, especially when used for unremunerative purposes, operates on industry, and we would like to see it reduced. We would like to see, in his words, a. considerable amount of the capital which is at present diverted used to fertilise the fields of industry. It is claimed, I know, by those who advocate a reduction of taxation that by that means you will be doing something to improve trade, that the amount which is paid in Income Tax will be put into investments. Is there anything in that? I do not think there is. There is certainly nothing in it if you reduce the Income Tax by 6d. in the £. There might be something in it—I think there would be much in it—if you could reduce the In-
come Tax by 2s. 6d., 3s. or 3s. 6d. in the £. We heard a great deal—the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts) was, I believe, the first to raise it—of the psychological effect of a reduction of taxation, but there is no psychological effect in a paltry reduction of Income Tax. I was much interested in a paragraph on that point which appeared in one of the evening newspapers last night. It was to the effect that the Budget had aroused no enthusiasm at all, because the amount of the reduction was so small. To no great extent, or hardly to any appreciable extent, is the reduction of Income Tax going to increase savings.
But may I go further? Is industry needing capital to-day? What is wanted to-day is not more capital hut an increase of effective demand, so that the capital now invested in industry can be more fully and more remuneratively unemployed. Let me give you proof of that. Take new issues. The amount of new issues during the past three months of the present year was only £46,000,000. Irk the first quarter of 1922 it was 93,000,000. Whenever there has been a new issue by a firm at all reputable, what happened? In the first hour after the announcement the new issue has been subscribed five times, ten times and fifteen times over, so that there is plenty of capital available if it were needed. What we need now, as I say, is to stimulate demand. The right hon. Gentleman the 'Member for Norwich gave expression to the most ridiculous fallacy in the course of an article which he published recently. He said it is more important to save for capital investment than to spend on consumption. What is the use of saving for capital investment unless you can increase consumption? Why do business men invest capital? It is in the hope of being able to sell. It is selling, it is consumption which is the object, and the reason why trade is so bad at present is because of the great fall in effective demand in the purchasing power of the vast part of our population. We have had, during the last 12 months, a fall in wages representing a fall in purchasing power of the earning classes of £200,000,000. How is a reduction of 6d. in the £ on Income Tax going to improve that? As a matter of fact, it is going to do nothing at all. The national debt is capital diverted from industry,
and, therefore, hon. Members who talk about the need for saving for more capital should turn their attention and their efforts to a far more profitable field.
Just a further point about the stimulus to saving to be given by a reduction of 6d. in the £ off Income Tax. It is opposed to the teaching of all the old orthodox economists. They advocated high taxation as a means of compelling people to work harder and to save more. I certainly think there is a great more truth in that line of argument than in that of those who say that by reducing taxation you are stimulating saving. How is this reduction in Income Tax going to result in saving? I am going to submit figures to the Committee. I hope they will pardon me if they are somewhat intricate; their importance must be my excuse. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer said, and indeed the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech that these remissions of taxation, particularly referring to the Income Tax, spread the benefit over the largest possible area, That is not the fact, and I am going to, prove it by facts which cannot be disputed. How is this remission of 6d. in the pound on Income Tax going to be distributed'? In reply to a question asked of him last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that there are now 2,250,000 Income Tax payers in this country. Unfortunately, we have had no official statistics to show the number of Income Tax payers in the various grades of income since 1920. The Treasury, in reply to a question I put a little time ago, said these figures could not be compiled. However, we know by the reply of the Chancellor last week that the total number is 2,250,000. It has not been difficult and I think it has been done with approximate accuracy—it has not been difficult for us on the Return of 1919–1920 to calculate how this remission of taxation on Income Tax is to he distributed between people with different grades of income. From the figures of 1919–1920, after making the necessary proportion of adjustment, we arrive at this conclusion, that of the 2,250,000 Income Tax payers 500,000 get over £475 a year income arid 1,750,000 below £475 a year. That means that three-quarters of the Income Tax payers have incomes below £475, and a. quarter of them incomes above £475.
Last year the remission of 1s. on the Income Tax cost £52,000,000 in a full year. Therefore 6d. will cost £26,000,000. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees with that. Suppose we call it £24,000,000. We find, then, continuing our calculation, that three-quarters of the Income Tax payers, those with less than £475 a year, would only get about £3,000,000 altogether out of the £24,000,000. It follows, therefore, that these 1,750,000 persons will, out of a remission of 6d. in their Income Tax, get only £2 a piece. Where is the incentive to saving there? How many new industrial enterprises will be started out of these £2 savings? These people do not get a remission of 6d. in the £1. In their case it is only 3d., or half, a point which is not sufficiently emphasised, and was not sufficiently understood when the reduction of 1s. was made last year. They get in all £3,000,000, and of the total of £24,000,000 no less than £21,000,000 will go for the remaining quarter of the Income Tax payers. They are, in round numbers, 500,000 persons. That is to say, those who have the most ability to pay will get the most relief.
Let us consider how it works out in regard to the Super-tax payers. Let me assume—it is a very moderate estimate, based on official figures—that there are about 75,000 Super-tax figures. The last figure which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue gave was nearly 90,000, but they added a footnote to the effect that the calculation was somewhat approximate. These 75,000 Super-tax payers are to get, on an average, from this remission £150 apiece. "To him that bath shall be given," apparently. Let us take the Super-tax figures for the super-rich, those with £5,000 a year or more. The number is about 25,000 These 25,000 people are to get £8,000,000 out of the £24,000.000, or an average reduction of £300 a year. They got £600 last year, and they get £300 this year. There are included amongst them, of course, people with incomes of £100,000 a year, and more. The right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) greatly interested the Committee yesterday by the peroration of his clever debating speech. I would be the last man in the world to criticise a man's peroration. Perorations were invented so that a man might say those things which he cannot prove either by fact or
argument. However, the right hon. Gentleman's peroration was not quite the ordinary sort. It was a justification and an argument. He justified these reductions of taxation on the ground that they were due to the people after the great anxieties they had endured, especially since the Armistice.
It is a curious distribution of the rewards for anxiety. What does the ex-service man get out of this distribution? What does the ordinary worker get out of it? He has had to endure reductions of wages, amounting to something like £700,000,000 during the last three years. What does he get? He is not left altogether out of consideration. You are to give him a penny off a pint of beer. You are giving to the 25,000 Super-tax payers a reduction of £300 a year, in addition to the £600 which they got last year. That is the reward for the anxiety which they have endured during the last three years. I have shown what the remission of taxation will mean. Is there much likelihood of it leading to saving? Reduction of taxation has been advocated on the ground that the taxes were too heavy, and that unless they were reduced, certain fortunate people would reduce the number of their servants, and motor-cars and country houses. What is likely to happen when the Super-tax payer gets this remission of £300 a year? Will he write to his stockbroker and tell him to invest the money? No such thing? The man's wife has been there before him. The money will go in increased expenditure, in the ostentatious display of the rich which we see everywhere in the streets of the West End to-day.
Reference has been made several times to a historic Debate that took place in the House of Commons nearly 70 years ago, when Mr. Gladstone used a phrase which has become classical in economic textbooks, in reference to not paying off the National Debt but leaving the money to fructify in the pockets of the people. Is the money more likely to fructify in the pockets of the people than elsewhere? The best answer to that is provided by Mill. This is what he said:
 The desirableness, per se, of maintaining a surplus for the: purpose of reducing the National Debt does not, I think, admit of a doubt. We sometimes hear it said that the amount should be left to fructify in the pockets of the people. This is a good
argument, as far as it goes, against levying taxes unnecessarily for purposes of unproductive expenditure, but not against paying off a National Debt. For what is meant by the word fructify '? If it means anything it means productive employment, and as an argument against taxation we must understand it to assert, that if the amount were left with the people they would save it, and convert it into capital. It is probable, indeed, that they would save a part, but extremely improbable they would save the whole, while, if taken by taxation and unemployed in paying off debt, the whole is saved and made productive. To the fund-holder who receives the payment it is already capital, not revenue, and he will make it fructify, that it may continue to afford him an income. The objection, therefore, is not only groundless, but the real argument is on the other side. The amount is much more certain of fructifying if it is not left in the pockets of the people."'
When reading that quotation I saw on the face of the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young) an expression which seemed to be one of contempt.

Mr. HILTON YOUNG: It may have seemed an expression of contempt. It was one not of contempt, but of amusement, and the amusement was totally unrelated to Mill.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman will see that a writer in the financial columns of the "Times" to-day gives expression to precisely the same opinion as I have just quoted from Mill, and it is an opinion with which the right hon. Member for Norwich agreed when he was writing articles for the daily Press not very long ago—that it is much more likely that trade will benefit by the prosecution of a policy of debt reduction than by a policy of reduction of taxation. The right hon. Member for West Swansea spoke very disrespectfully of the Chancellor's proposals the other night, more especially in regard to their effect on trade. The right hon. Gentleman said that the proposals would have no effect at all, or no serious results. I note, however, in the newspapers this morning that the proposals have had a very remarkable, and, from the right lion. Baronet's point of view, a very gratifying result on the financial position of one of the great firms with which he is associated. I notice that the ordinary shares of Brunner, Mond and Company increased in capital value yesterday by £1,000,000.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: They were the same price a fortnight ago.

Mr. SNOWDEN: They have increased in value since Monday by an amount equal to £1,000,000. The hon. Member who interrupted referred to the price a fortnight ago. Let me go back to the price a year ago. The capital value of the shares in Brunner, Mond and Company, estimated in Stock Exchange quotations, has increased by £11,000,000 during the past 12 months. That is since the Budget of 12 months ago.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Jolly good management!

Mr. SNOWDEN: I can quite understand that these facts are unpalatable to hon. Members opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, the reverse! "] The fact that these facts should be made public is disagreeable to them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No "]

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Does it not mean that the saving is going into investment, and does not that destroy the hon. Member's argument?

Mr. SNOWDEN: No; it is rather an anticipation of events. Reduction of interest on debt represents a far greater advantage to the country than a reduction of 6d. in the Income Tax. The policy of the Labour party is debt reduction in preference to taxation reduction—but debt reduction because it is a preliminary and essential condition to sound reduction of taxation. I therefore emphasise what I have said already, that this is our purpose. A word or two on the Corporation Profits Tax. The right hon. Gentleman, in referring to this matter, seemed to think that the Labour party would he opposed to the abolition or reduction of the Corporation Profits Tax. No such thing. We think it is a very bad tax, and I agree with what the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday in regard to it. I will only add this. If a saving in taxation were likely to improve the commercial position at all, the abolition of the Corporation Profits Tax would be much more likely to do so than a reduction of Income Tax, for this reason, that the saving would go into the reserve fund of the country, and would be available for capital or semi-capital expenditure.
As to the capital levy, I assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer he is going to hear a great deal about it before the Finance Bill passes. We are going to
put it forward as an alternative to the Income Tax proposals, because we think it would fulfil what the right hon. Gentleman stated to be his purpose, namely, to spread the burden as much as possible. I am not going to argue upon it now, because there will be other opportunities of doing so.
With regard to beer, that matter cannot be considered purely from an economic point of view, because there are social and moral considerations which enter into the matter. The point which I wish to enforce is that the increased taxation upon beer and the high price of beer has proved the greatest agency of temperance reform' that has ever been seen in this country. The reduction in the number of convictions for drunkenness has been very marked—they have fallen by nearly one-half—and those diseases which are attributable to intemperance have also fallen to a very considerable extent. One thing this country cannot afford to do is to encourage an increase in the consumption of liquor, and I am amazed that commercial men should tolerate with such complacency as they do the existence of this terrific drain upon the economic resources of the country. It is time that they developed an intelligence in the matter, equal to the intelligence of the captains of industry in the United States of America. There is no trade in the country deserving of less consideration than the brewing trade. There is no trade which has fleeced the community so scandalously, so unblushingly, so mercilessly as the brewing trade has done during the last few years. In a question answered on Monday by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the right hon. Gentleman told us that in 1922 the aggregate profits of the brewers of the United Kingdom came to nearly double the figure of 1913. Every hon. Member of the House who follows financial matters knows the profits which the brewing industry has been making during the last few years. The profits have doubled in nearly every case, and in the aggregate they were almost double what they were in 1913. Therefore, if a reduction in the price of beer had to be decided upon, my position is that the entire cost of meeting that reduction should have been put upon the trade.
It is sometimes said that the increase in the taxation of beer is higher than that
on any other commodity. That is not the case. After this reduction the cheapest beer which I suppose will be sold at 4d. will be taxed seven times higher than was the case in 1913. Sugar is taxed 14 times more, and my position is that the people who have the first claim upon any real surplus at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are the wives and children, and that first consideration should be paid to a, tax which presses, as the Sugar Duty does, upon bare necessaries of life. I have indicated briefly our attitude on the financial proposals of the year. I say no more except this, that when these proposals are embodied in the Finance Bill I can assure the right hon. Gentleman he may rely upon the strenuous opposition of the Labour party to most of his proposals. I have said little about the capital levy.[HON. MEMBERS: "Why? "] Why? Because we are asking the Government to give us a special day for the consideration of that matter. It is not a subject which can properly be discussed in a perfunctory manner during a general Debate, and if we cannot get a special day for its consideration then we shall move it as a reasoned Amendment on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

Mr. W. GREENWOOD: I listened very attentively to the speech of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), and I noted that he charged successive Chancellors of the Exchequer with inconsistency. I never expected that the humble Member for Stockport would come under the lash of the hon. Member, but when he did come under that lash, at any rate it was not for inconsistency. The burden of the hon. Member's arguments regarding the inconsistency of previous Chancellors was that whereas two or three years ago they were in favour of the repayment of debt as against the remission of taxation, they had changed their views and were now more in favour of a remission of taxation than of a. reduction of debt. I have always maintained since the War that it was a grave mistake for this country to pay so much attention to the reduction of debt and to go in for excessive taxation, because, in my opinion, that has been one of the causes of the excessive deflation which has taken place and which has brought in its wake an unparalleled amount of unemployment. It is not the first time that I have
had the pleasure of listening to the hon. Member for Colne Valley, but on previous occasions the circumstances have been rather different. I listened to him with very great interest many years ago under a large lamp-post near the Oldham Park, and I used to think then how idealistic were his arguments and theories. After a longer experience, it appears to me that his arguments are just as idealistic and just as unpractical as they were in those days. Hon. Members opposite sometimes show a great knowledge of financial affairs, but sometimes they show themselves lacking in that respect. I was glad to see the Leader of the Opposition in the House a little while ago, but I am sorry he has now left, because he made a statement during the Debate on Monday to the effect that limited companies did not pay Income Tax unless they were making profits, and, therefore, that it was no great hardship for them with regard to their cost of production.
I would point out to the Committee that this is not true, and I should like to tell the Committee exactly what goes on in the Lancashire cotton trade which proves that a very considerable amount of money is paid in Income Tax whether the firms concerned make a profit or not. At least £112,000,000 of capital is engaged in the cotton spinning trade of Lancashire. It is invested in those mills as a loan and interest is paid on the loan and Income Tax is paid by the companies. This system—whether hon. Members think it a good one or not has been going on in Oldham and district for the past 70 years and it is the system on which, to a very great extent, the cotton spinning industry of Lancashire has been built up. That industry plays no unimportant part in normal times in the trade and industry of this country, and when that industry is paying Income Tax to such a large amount before any profits are made, it shows that hon. Members opposite do not understand in that regard exactly what they are talking about, because the Income Tax on the sum I have mentioned will come to no less than £1,800,000 per annum. I agree with the hon. Member who spoke last that in the main the contention is between those who are in favour of tax remission as against those who are in favour of debt reduction, and I think sometimes too little importance is
attached to that problem. I agree very often with arguments put, forward from the benches opposite with regard to taxation, especially when it is said that the burden of all taxes falls in the main and in the long run on the poorer class of the community. I believe that is true, but I ask the Committee which tax presses the people of the country most and especially the poor people of the country? [HON. MEMBERS: "Sugar."] I think the greatest tax that presses the working people of this country is the tax of unemployment, and it is because in my view the remission of taxation rather than the reduction of debt affects the question of unemployment that I heartily agree with that policy. I ask hon. Members to listen to a point of view with regard to the manner in which taxation presses upon the people. I am going to read something that was said a long time ago by Mr. John Bright.
 What do taxes mean? They mean bareness of furniture, of clothing, and of the table in many a cottage in Lancashire, in Suffolk, and in Dorsetshire. They mean an absence of medical attendance for a sick wife, an absence of the school pence of three or four little children —hopeless toil to the father of a family, penury through his life, a cheerless old age, and, if T may quote the language of a poet of humble life, At last a little bell tolled hastily for the pauper funeral.' That is what taxes mean. The labourers of Dorset-shire as well as the weavers and spinners of Lancashire are toiling and must toil harder, longer, and with smaller remuneration for every single £100 that you extract in taxes front the people in excess of what is necessary for the just requirements of the Exchequer of the country.
I am in entire agreement with John Bright with regard to that, that we have no right to extract from the taxpayers money that is unnecessary to meet our requirements. Our opponents on the other side say that a reduction in the Income Tax will not bring about an improvement in employment, but the best way to test that is to see what has taken place. It was stated on the last Budget by the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) that the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time was making a gamble. At any rate, that Budget, whether a gamble or not, was a very sound one, because it attached greater importance to the question of reviving trade and finding employment for the
people than to the question of the credit of the nation. Nobody believes more than I do that we ought to try to uphold the credit of this nation, but I think hon. Members will agree that we should not do it as we did during the past three years, to such an extent that it caused unemployment to be so great that there were over 2,000,000 people at one time out of work, especially when they realise that when the first stop in that policy of deflation was made in the last Budget, it brought about a reduction in the unemployment figures from 1,700,000 to 1,200,000. There are a great many business men who, like those who were Chancellors of the Exchequer, but are now business men, are beginning to take rather a different view of this question.
Although we had a very bold Chancellor in 1920 with regard to the deflation policy and to the great increase in taxation, I was hoping that during this Budget we should have had another Chancellor, just as hold, but hold in another way, and one who would at any rate, have reduced taxation more than he has done. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way during these Debates to accept an Amendment, if it is put forward by hon. Members opposite, reducing the Income Tax, not by 6d., but by is., because we have already hail proof that the reduction of that tax has made a decided improvement with regard to the number of unemployed. There is no fear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer need expect that any deficit will take place, even if he does that. Hon. Members forget that there is surely a possibility of expansion in the taxpaying capacity, both of those who pay direct taxation and those who pay indirect taxation, and I venture to say that the policy pursued last year ought to be pursued in a greater degree this year, because it would save money in the amount to be paid for unemployment benefit by the State, and it would also mean that there would be an increase in the revenue on account of the greater spending power of those people who would be unemployed and thus obtaining greater wages than they would have been doing from unemployment benefit.
All that we ask for in business is that we should he treated fairly, and when hon. Members say that business men are selfish in asking for these big reductions in Income Tax, I think they do us a great
injustice. I would like to point out one instance that shows the great unfairness of the taxation as it affects this country and as it affects the United States of America. Our Debt services in this Budget are put down as £350,000,000. In America, instead of having to pay £350,000,000, they have to receive £50,000,000. That means to say that, roughly speaking, the 10,000,000 workers in this country—which is about a fair estimate of the number—have to pay in Debt services alone, as compared with the United States of America, £400,000,000 a year. That means 15s. 6d. a week for every working man and woman in the country, and I think that is a great hardship and one that no industry ought to he called upon to suffer. Personally, I do not agree with the hon. Member for the Colne Valley in what he said against the possibilities of a betting tax. I do not see why a tax on what is certainly a luxury ought not to be imposed. We are often told, especially from the other side, that if there is one thing more than another that ought to he taxed, it is the luxuries which people buy, and I may say, in regard to that, that I missed something from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, but, first of all, I should be very glad if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, when he is at liberty, will listen to this point.
I listened very carefully to the speech of the Chancellor to see whether he had done anything with regard to removing an injustice from which traders who are making motor car tyres in this country feel that they are suffering, and that is that in the Finance Act a motor car tyre is not considered to be an integral part of a motor car. They were excluded during the War, and there has never been a logical reason given for that exclusion being continued. The Chancellor of the Exchequer promised two or three weeks ago that this matter should have his attention. In motor car tyres coming into this country there is contained over 5,000,000 pounds of cotton yarn which could be spun, if need be, in the mills of this country, and the cotton trade of Lancashire is at present on short time and is working only 50 per cent. of its opportunity. Here we are paying debts to America, having to pay such considerable sums, which I think every hon. Member in the House will agree is a great. hard-
ship, and yet we allow them to send to us these tyres without any duty being put upon them, and we lose the possibility of producing the yarn that is required for hem. I hope that during the course of these Debates the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to put right this particular injustice. The hon. Member for Colne Valley mentioned a deputation to one of the Ministers with regard to the emission of taxation. The cotton trade at the present time feels that it is time that the voice of Lancashire was heard more. We have heard a great deal of the hardships from Scotland, but those hardships are no greater than are the hardships of the working people of Lancashire to-day. I myself, and many hon. Members with me, think that one of the greatest reasons for the depression is heavy taxation, and one of the best ways in which we could remove it would be to reduce what everyone must recognise is this grinding weight of taxation.
I cannot understand why hon. Members always say that, we in this country should be so fully prepared to pay our debts right up to the mark when they never say anything much about other countries paying their debts to us. Surely it is only fair that We should have, at any rate, somewhere near a quid pro quo, and I would ask for the sympathy of hon. Members opposite with regard to the point of view of diminution of taxes as against diminution of debt. Three years ago hon. Members talked glibly of paying off the National Debt in 25 years, but, to-day, even those who think so much about purr economy have at any rate, changed their minds from about 25 years to about 100 years. One of the purest of economists said, "What is two years in the life of a nation?" He. talked as if two years were nothing. A man who can sit in his office and who never worries about being unemployed does not need to early about two years at all, but what are two years to those in business who cannot carry on because of the excessive load of taxation? What happens about the unemployed? Is a year nothing to them? Hon. Members need only look at the statistics with regard to those who cannot meet their demands for rates and taxes, at the number of businesses which are going bankrupt, to see that in this country we are pursuing a policy which is suicidal. It is all right for those who
keep out of it to say it does not matter, but let us take a lead in this case from the other countries in Europe, like France and Germany, and let us put, first of all, not the credit of the nation with regard to the exchanges, serious and important, though it may he, but that which is of the greatest importance to every working loan and woman in this country, namely, the regularity of employment.

6.0 P.M

Mr. NEWBOLD: I want, first of all, to approach the Budget from the standpoint of one who has been listening with interest to the various arguments put forward in its support, whether from the point of view of the Government or that of the semi-Government; then to the criticisms that have been levelled against it from the Liberal and Labour Benches, and then to go forward and put before the Committee the ideas which I would prefer to see incorporated in any Budget, that might be produced in this country. The first thing that I want to say is that I have found a very considerable degree of encouragement in reading the peroration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. All through his speech there was a very great deal to encourage me, because it is quite evident that he is feeling that in his own time, in the time of a problematical successor, whom, he has not, however, named yet, and in the time of other Chancellors of the Exchequer who will come after, there is no likelihood of anything like a serious reduction of that burden of Debt which is weighing upon the Government and the governing class at the present time. He made it quite clear, also, that he is very skeptical about the improvement in trade, of which we have heard considerably during the last few weeks or months. He made it quite clear that in his mind—and evidently, if it is in his mind, it is in the minds of the expert advisers of the Exchequer and in the minds of the Board of Trade as well—that this improvement in trade at the present time, and during the last month or two, is nothing more than a temporary revival, and he goes on to talk of the danger that he may require a larger sum of money than he has Budgeted for to meet eventualities on the Continent, eventualities that May arise abroad and at home. There was throughout his speech a note of that chronic pessimism that
haunts the Budget speeches of every capitalist statesman in this country, and of every capitalist statesman in France and in Europe generally.
I would like to draw attention to this particular characteristic of the Budget. I think that, from the standpoint of the party and of the class interests which he represents, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has produced what his own supporters may describe as an excellent Budget. He has produced a Budget wherein he allots all the money which he has at his disposal to the purpose of reducing debt, the aim being, quite obviously throughout the whole of his proceedings, to appreciate the value of the £ sterling, to do everything possible to make this country once again a place to which the peoples of the world shall come for credit. His aim in that direction is quite conspicuous on this occasion, but I notice that it does not meet with what one might call approval whole and entire from the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for the Hillhead Division of Glasgow (Sir R. Horne). The right hon. Member for Hillhead regrets that so much of the surplus—I will not enter into the argument as to whether it is a boná fide surplus or a fictitious surplus; we will take it it is a surplus—the right hon. Member for Hillhead criticises the disposition of this surplus entirely for the purpose of reducing debt. He would like to see it devoted to the reduction of taxation. That is only natural, coming from the particular quarter that it does. As Chancellors of the Exchequer generally reflect, alike in their personality and in their policy, whatever happens to be the dominant interest in the State at any particular time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this occasion reflects pre-dominantly the interests of the credit-mongering class, and the criticism comes from one who represents, perhaps in the highest degree of any representative in this House, the interests of large-scale industry, and one who stands for high capitalism upon the industrial field. His particular branch of the capitalist class desires above everything else at the present time that there shall prevail in the hands of those capitalists a sufficient amount of ready money to enable them to extract themselves from the clutches of the banking, the insurance and other credit houses. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer and his section rather propose that it shall be difficult for the industrial interests to extract themselves from the clutches of mortgage into which they have got. I listened during the course of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Hillhead with very considerable interest to those things that he had to say concerning the sacrifices that have. been made by the people of this country, and I think I can scarcely do better than call again to the minds of hon. Members some of the statements that he made. He said:
The attitude of this country since the Armistice has presented as great a spectacle of heroic performance as was exhibited even in the course of the War.
I must say I think that comes remarkably well from one whom I might very appositely describe as the Hindenburg of I he class-struggle, because if there be one man more than another who was in charge of the attack which was made upon the workers' organisations, the attack which was made upon the miners, the attack which was made upon the railwaymen, the attack which was made upon all sections of the working classes from 1919 to the time of the great miners' lock-out, it was the right hon. Member for Hillhead. To-day he has gone from public enterprise to private enterprise. He is a man who is particularly associated with the endeavour to drive the working-class further and further into the abyss of destitution. One must say that that particular man represents the concentrated and combined attack of capitalism on the standard of life of the working-class, and for him to talk of the sacrifices made by the people of this country is nothing more or less than rank humbug and hypocrisy.
I want to deal with arguments presented from other sides of the House. The right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young) has a third alternative. One person desires to devote money to paying off Debt. Another one desires that the surplus money shall rather be used for the reduction of taxation. This third Gentleman comes forward with the proposition that it shall be devoted—well, it is difficult to say exactly to what—but, at any rate, he says, do not let us be over anxious about the reduction of debt. He, apparently, belongs to that good, old bond-holding school, which considers that the best interests of this country are generally served by imposing
upon the masses of the people the beneficent task of working in order to keep the rentier class contented and happy. That is the third proposition put before this Committee. There are three propositions—that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that of the right hon. Member for Hillhead, and, thirdly, the proposition of the right hon. Member for Norwich. Then, hon. Members who sit around me on the Labour Benches wish to extricate the Chancellor of the Exchequer from his difficulty, if they cannot extract him from his position on the Treasury Bench and do the job themselves. They want to extract the Chancellor of the Exchequer from his difficulty by persuading him to listen to the arguments for the Capital Levy. That is their alternative solution, and I have been particularly interested this afternoon in hearing the comments of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) upon the Capital Levy, because I wanted to know just how far the Labour party proposes to use the Capital Levy. I had thought for a while that it was seriously intended to use the Capital Levy for the purpose of transferring the means of production to the State, but I find that I have been mistaken. The Labour party is not concerned at the present time with going towards Socialism at all. It is concerned rather with the task of paying off the Debt by means of the-Capital Levy. That has come out quite clearly this afternoon in the speech of the hon. Member for Colne Valley, and I am sure that that speech will he read with very great interest by the whole of the working-class, particularly the remarks which he made afterwards, in which he said that the first object of the Labour party was debt reduction, that the second object was tax reduction, and then he stopped short.
In my opinion it is a most remarkable attitude for the Labour party to take up—first, the reduction of Debt; second, the reduction of taxation; third—and "also ran," apparently—housing, education, social reform, and the general improvement of the lot of the people. In examining the Budget, which is, after all, the central feature in the year's Parliamentary programme, the spokesman who particularly represents the Labour party in the Debate does not make any reference to the provision which the Chancellor of the Exchequer should make for the improvement of the
standard of life of the people. I am not concerned with the reduction of taxation, though I say it quite frankly that I believe there should be, and I shall do everything in my power when the time comes to see that there shall be, no levying of Income Tax on any income under £500 a year. I think £500 is quite small enough a sum upon which any man and woman can bring up a family. I think, however, that when the income gets over £2,000 a year, it is time to put on the full screw, and make the tax 20s. in the pound. That, certainly, is the position of the Communist party, and I do not want you to think that we are going to let you off with more than £2,000. If you have got more than that, in these days at any rate, the best thing you can do is to show your love for the people by handing it over. If you will not show your love by handing it over, it will have to be taken from you. When it comes to a question of indirect taxes, I suggest that the Government should take off entirely the taxes upon sugar, tobacco, and tea, and take off the taxes generally upon those things which are the essentials, like the food of the common people.
I come to the proposal to tax betting. I notice that the Labour party views with considerable dismay this proposal, and also I notice another hon. Member views with dismay the suggestion that the Churches might interfere, that the moral influences in the country might interfere. I do not think that there is any particular danger of that if this is not going to be extended to prize draws, raffles, and that sort of thing. Yet, in connection with this proposed tax upon betting, the preliminary inquiry will probably be a great advantage to the capitalist class in enabling them to discover what proportion of surplus income remains in the hands of the workers so that they can be deprived of it without any lowering of their efficiency. I think there is probably a great deal more in that proposition than anything else. It is, however, a curious commentary upon the Christian civilisation of this country that the churches, chapels, and Sunday schools, and all the moralising influences of society, aided by the Judicature and the Police, have not been able up to this time to exterminate a vice such as that
of betting; rather that it has got the hold it has and which apparently reflects at the present time the system under which in this country we are living.
It is notorious at the present time that whilst there is not more money possibly in circulation in the betting industry—because it is an industry, an industry that employs a great number of people without any corresponding benefit to the community—it is certainly far more active than it was previously. The circulation of what is passing between one and another is very much more rapid to-day, for every one in the working-classes is trying to make ends meet by putting so much on a horse with a view to getting something for nothing. It is characteristic of the corruption that is to-day throughout the whole of public life, throughout the whole of our social system in this country, in a country famous for Puritanism, famous for its adherence to Christian standards, and nothing probably shows up the corruption of British public life and the disintegration of society more than the fact that the House of Commons are seriously considering the legalisation of betting at the present time. It is only perhaps the perpetuation of the achievement of the late Government and continued by the present Government, of actually extending a bounty on prostitution. The Ministry of Labour refuses to pay to the unemployed man or woman a proper amount of benefit. They will not allow the parish councils of Scotland or the board of guardians in England to pay an amount of money adequate to keep the people at the trade union rate of wages or even at—

The CHAIRMAN: The Ministry of Labour cannot be discussed on the question before the Committee.

Mr. NEWBOLD: The Ministry of Labour will, I think, come to a sudden end if the Budget does not pass. If the, Budget does not provide an extra amount of money for the Ministry of Labour it will be necessary for the Ministry of Labour to perpetuate this system of bounties on prostitution. The bounty on prostitution to which I refer is the inadequate provision of the Ministry of Labour—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member might put forward the same argument in respect to any Department, that it ought
to have more money, and so raise a question that does not arise on the general financial position which is the question before the House.

Mr. NEWBOLD: Well, I have succeeded in raising the question of the unemployed, prior to the time you called me to order, but I shall have to go back. I have given a very great deal of thought to the necessity of providing in the Budget for far-reaching social reconstruction. I confess that probably in that also I shall be ruled out of order. I was going to say that, so far as I was concerned, the Budget is unsatisfactory. The criticism levelled against it, by its various critics is equally unsatisfactory, because they all talk about a reduction of debt, a reduction of taxation, sinking funds, and all the various things which the capitalists can throw from one to the other, and will have at their disposal, instead of using the Budget as a means of social amelioration, and as a means of putting at the disposal of the Government the requisite sum of money to rebuild the houses of the country, to rebuild the towns and villages, so that this country may be a place fit for heroes or even human beings to live in. In the past we have had Budgets introduced for the purpose of giving old age pensions. We have had Budgets brought forward for giving this social reform and that social reform. This Budget will be known as the Budget brought forward without any single proposal for social reform, and the Debate upon it will be known still more as the Debate in which the spokesmen of the Labour party uttered no protest upon that fact.
The Budget that would satisfy me, and the only one that would go towards satisfying me, would be one which would provide a sum -of not less than £200,000,000 per year for social reconstruction. The first and foremost charge would be for housing. The second charge would be for the building of schools, so that there should not he in the length and breadth of this country a single school wherein there need be a class of more than 40 scholars. I demand for the children of the workers of this country that they should have educational facilities extending from the lowest rung of the ladder to the highest rung of the University, and -equal to those at the disposal of the- children of hon. Members opposite.
Any Budget that fails to provide for these things is a Budget that I myself reject with contumely and contempt. The third demand I put forward is that the Budget shall provide for every boy and girl and for every young man and woman between the ages of 15 and 25 facilities for athletics, entertainments, cultural training, and all that kind of thing; and the fourth demand is one which has been in my mind for a time, particularly when I pass the London Hospital and note for the fifth year the national begging campaign. The Budget should provide for hospitals, nursing homes, sanatoria, and every kind of provision for the health of the people, from the pre-natal stage to the time they die. All these things should be provided by the State. They should be a first charge on the Budget and before there is any charge allowed for interest on War Loan. I demand that there shall be a cessation of the payment of interest on War Loan, a suspension of the payments of any interest on War Loan over a total of £2,500 until such time as the people of this country are properly housed, until such time as the people of this country have adequate education for their children, and until such time as the people of this country have for their children and young people the aesthetic things I mentioned above equal to those provided at Oxford and Cambridge, at Eton and Harrow. I demand that there should be no expenditure upon such things as War Loan until the national health is provided for in a way shall outline.
If there he not enough money to meet these things, then other sources of wealth will have to be tapped. I would suggest that the functionaries of the Crown, or the occupant of the Imperial Chair himself downwards to the functionaries of the House of Commons, many of whom are over-paid, should none of them receive an income of over £2,000 a year. If the King could not get on with less, then let the Stock Exchange have a-voluntary subscription to keep him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order! "] I thought that would get home; that is because, Mr. Chairman, they will have to pay for their royalty instead of the workers having to pay for the support of the King. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order! "] The Chairman has not called me to, order. I would propose until such time as the people have a minimum, and a very high minimum at that,
that we should cease to do this, and that the governing class should forego its interest, rents, and profits on the one side, and that we should not pay anything out from the other side. We would put prohibitive taxation on all incomes over £2,500, and in that way we might perhaps be able to get social reform. If we cannot get it that way—and from the quietude of hon. Members opposite it is extremely unlikely that they would be prepared to get off the people's back even for five years—then they will have to be thrust off. The only alternative to getting off voluntarily is being thrust off. If they will not provide these things themselves, well, then, I suppose the Labour party will be here to do it. If the Labour party comes in, we know what will happen from the assurance of the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley). We have been assured that if the Labour party were to do anything rashly there would be a panic in the city. We have been told that if the Labour party comes in at the end of one year and does this sort of thing it will go out—a city man told me so—at the beginning of the next. We are told if they do anything drastic they will affect the interests in the city. Despite the fact that we would all like to get a new social order quietly, this Budget and past Budgets, end present and past Budget speeches, show quite clearly that there is only one way of getting these matters through, and that is by clearing out the lot of you, and so allowing the workers to run the country.

Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: The speech which has filled most space this evening has been that of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), and it would have been tempting to have answered it. Part of that speech has been answered by the hon. Member who has last spoken, and as to the question of the taxation of capital, his suggestions would have been much more effective in the mind of the House if they had not been preceded last evening by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young) which demolished them in advance. But there is one point upon which I should like to comment, and that was the effort the hon. Gentleman made to show that no savings of capital of any particular advantage to the community were likely
to be derived from a reduction of the Income Tax. What he said latterly seemed to me to refute his earlier statement. His observation was, as I understood it, that a part of the reduction—to the extent of £2 per head only—would go to a million and a quarter people, and that would not do much good, whilst the largest part would go to people who would reap a much greater benefit per head from it. In the first place, it seemed to me that part which went to the smaller people would be beneficial to the State, because it would tend to increase consumption, which the hon. Member's leader favoured, and the suggestion that the Super-tax and large Income Tax payers would reap large benefits, disproved his primary argument that there would be no savings likely to result, and therefore, no benefit to the community, for that class is the saving class. I feel that it would be useless now to pursue the many topics which have been raised during the last three days. Amongst all the Budget Debates I have heard, I. think this has been by far the most beneficial from the point of view of those who desire to understand the matter, and from the point of view that there has been less partisan feeling than I ever remember before. Consequently, there is a much greater chance that the House may come together and finally help the Government to solve some of the problems which face the country.
There is one point which has not been referred to in the Debate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that he means to keep his eye on expenditure during the current year and for the years to come. I think he was right to make that statement. What is the situation? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out that next year he would be in a very much worse position in many respects than he is this year. In the first place, he tells us that he expects to lose £50,000,000 in regard to the sums he will have from the disposal of war stocks. He says he will have three bad years of Income Tax by which he expects to lose £50,000,000, and if he sticks to his determination to have a, 'sinking fund of £45,000,000 next year he will lose another £5,000,000 in that way.
The remissions this year only amount to £34,000,000 and next year he estimates that they will amount to £57,000,000, and
in that way he will lose another £23,000,000. In addition to this there is no allowance this year for Supplementary Estimates, which in last year's Budget stood at £25,000,000. Therefore, on the whole, it is probable that the right hon. Gentleman will find himself £100,000,000 worse off next year than he is at the present time. On the other hand, war pensions may fall a little and special expenditure may fall, and we all hope that interest on the National Debt may fall. But these are all very uncertain things, and I cannot help thinking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very wise, although he did not give it prominence in his speech, when he said that he meant to keep his eye on the expenditure.
I should like to remind the House that this is the first year since the peace in which expenditure has been estimated to fall less than £100,000,000 in the year. From the high-water mark of the peace year the expenditure fell by £1,100,000,000 and in the following year it was reduced by £700,000,000. In the year 1921–22, that of the boom, it fell by £100,000,000. The following year, when the slump attracted people's minds to this question again, it rose to £300,000,000. The Estimates for the current year indicate that the Chancellor expects the expenditure to fall by something less than £100,000,000 less the £25,000,000 for Supplementary Estimates, which sum was included in last year's Budget but not in this year's Budget. So that we are face to face with the fact that expenditure is beginning to fall at a very much lower rate. So far as the first year or two after the War are concerned, the heavy savings were understandable, but it is more difficult to make savings now. On this point I should like to offer one suggestion. Anybody who looks at the figures which are indicated in the financial statement of the year will see that there is only one source out of which there can be much reduction of expenditure, and that is in the £436,000,000 which are estimated to be spent on the Supply Services.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What about the Army?

Sir P. PILDITCH: Yes, that is a Supply Service. There are the fighting Services, the Post Office, and the Customs, and there remains for the Civil Services £250,000,000. That sum is comparable to
an amount of £55,000,000 before the War, that is to say, that whereas the Civil. Services proper were costing £55,000,000 before the War they now cost £250,000,000 a year. But that amount includes war pensions and old age pensions, which should not be included in this calculation. That roughly means a reduction of £100,000,000 which nobody suggests should be interfered with. There is in this large sum the only method by which we can economise unless you make considerable reductions in the Sinking Fund charges by a reduction of interest, but outside that this is the only fund out of which the right hon. Gentleman can save money during the year which follows the current year, which he is thinking a good deal about in his calculations this year.
I will make one suggestion. I am quite satisfied that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to pursue the course of going into the question of this £436,000,000 as being the only way by which fresh savings can be made. I would like to indicate a source by which the right hon. Gentleman can obtain facts that will help him to make a selection of those services and directions in which he can hope to make savings. The Estimates Committee of this House, of which the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) is Chairman, and of which I have been a member for several years—it is the Cinderella Committee of the House, doing unostentatious work quietly—has published a number of Reports accompanied' by the evidence on which they are based, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will peruse those Reports he will find indications of the way in which some of the money has been spent, and on which some of the heavy obligations which still have to he complied with were incurred, and these Reports will give him some assistance in the policy of reducing expenditure to which he has committed himself.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not mind referring to page 7 of his admirable financial statement he will find that there is a summary in small print at the bottom which indicates how this £250,000,000 I have referred to is made up. What I am suggesting is that it would be very useful to the House if he could indicate how much of that £250,000,000 goes in the actual emoluments paid to the personnel of the various:
services in the State. If he went into that question I think he would find that those emoluments have more than doubled since the War. He would also find that they have risen from something between £90,000,000 and £100,000,000 to very nearly £200,000,000 since the War.
I think he would also find, if he pursues these studies, that some of the methods by which these commitments were entered into during the last years of the War and the post-War years are exceedingly questionable from the point of view of economy. With all respect I offer to the right hon. Gentleman that suggestion, because I feel satisfied that both in regard to current economies which he relies upon to balance this Budget, and with regard to the economies which must come in the future, there is only one way in which this can be done, and that is by reductions of expenditure which can only come out of the area which I have described and by the means which I have suggested.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The discussion before the Committee has, I think, so far shown a general consensus of opinion that if relief is to be given it should be given in the direction of stimulating trade and thereby reviving industry. It is true that there has been a difference of opinion as to the particular form which should be taken in order to stimulate trade and help to revive industry. We have been told that there is to he a grant of £2,750,000 in relief of agricultural rates. The question I wish to put to the Prime Minister and to the Chancellor of Exchequer is, why should we be asked to differentiate between agricultural rates and the rates in other parts of the country in this way.
At the present time agriculture is receiving under the Act of 1896 a relief of £1,300,000. Further relief is now to be given, and with the grant given from the Road Fund there is to be granted from the Exchequer £5,500,000 in relief of agricultural rates. I want to put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister as to whether a case has been made out for differentiating in this way in favour of agricultural rates and agriculture as against industrial districts and the rest of the urban population. It is somewhat significant that, when the 1896 grant was made, it was then stated that it
was merely being done pending a revision of the incidence of local taxation. We were told in the King's Speech that there was to be a revision of the whole system of State Exchequer grants from the Treasury towards the remission of local taxation.
I do want to put It to the Minister concerned that, although the state of agriculture may be bad, the state of industry in other parts of the country is as bad, if not worse. If one turns to the labour returns one finds that the amount of unemployment is infinitely greater, say, in Sheffield, on the North-East coast, in the Midlands, and in South Wales, than it is in agricultural districts. I have turned up the latest reports dealing with the matter, and. while it is true that it is stated that in agricultural districts there is an abundance of labour, in regard to industrial areas it is shown that there is a rate of unemployment of 39 per cent. in shipbuilding on the North-East coast, and 22 per cent. in engineering on the North-East coast, with an average for the whole country of over 13 per cent. I do submit that, in these circumstances, there is no special need to relieve agriculture from the national funds when industry generally is not being relieved. To take another test, if one turns to the question of bankruptcies, I cannot find, so far as the latest returns go, that the bankruptcies among landlords or farmers are any greater than in ordinary industry; in fact, the figures, so far as they are available, show that they are considerably greater in other industries than among landlords or farmers. Take what test you will, the necessity is infinitely greater in industrial areas and in urban districts than in the agricultural districts.
If one takes the burden of local rating, according to the return issued by the Ministry of Health, it will be found that, while in rural districts 55 per cent. of the rates are under 12s. 6d. in the £, in the urban districts only 18 per cent.. are under 12s. 6d. That is for the year 1922. At the other end of the scale, in rural districts only 22 per cent. are over 15s. in the £, but in the urban districts 47 per cent. are over 15s. in the £. Therefore, if the necessity is great in the agricultural districts, it is ever so much greater in the industrial and in the urban areas. I do not complain that a grant is made by the
Exchequer to agricultural districts, but I think that grant should be made all round, because the incidence of taxation and of rating affects very inequitably the whole question of the cost that is borne by the public. I regret that the Government have not yet had time to bring in a comprehensive Measure for dealing with a question which has been urgently demanding a solution for the last 30 years. To add force to the point I am trying to make, I would mention that, whereas the highest rates in the rural districts are not more than 15s. in the £, last year, according to the Ministry of Health return, in Merthyr Tydfil the rates were 30s. 51d., in West Ham 26s. ld., in Norwich 27s. 7d., in my own district 20s., and the same in Sheffield and elsewhere; and yet, while these abnormal rates exist, relief is going to be given from the Exchequer to those districts where the rate is much below the average.
I appeal, therefore, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister that, as they are going to vary the custom and practice which has held good up to the present of making grants from the National Exchequer, that variation should be a fair variation all round, and should not be given simply to one section of the community and denied to another. I submit, also, that, if you are anxious to revive industry, you will revive industry ever so much more by giving the relief to the rates rather than to the Income Tax payer, because the cost of production is very heavy so far as rates are concerned. We have heard from the Chairmen of big industrial companies, speaking at their annual meetings, that they are handicapped in the struggle for foreign trade because of the excessive rates which they have to bear, and which are a first charge on production. The Chairman of Messrs. Bolckow, Vaughan and Co. showed how, as compared with 1914, the local rates had increased from 5d. per ton of steel produced to something like 3s. 2d., and in the Sheffield district similar figures were given, showing that the industries of Sheffield were crippled because of the excessive burden of rates, which is a direct charge on industry. If you wish to relieve industry, you will give it much greater relief by making a grant towards the reduction of local rating than by taking 6d., or even 1s., off the Income Tax. If relief is to be given on the widest scale to help to stimulate trade it will be
infinitely better done by seeking to give the same number of millions to industrial areas which are being given to agricultural areas. Therefore, I hope that, before this matter is finally settled, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who know the need better than I can tell them, will realise the necessity of giving this grant to the industrial areas pending that larger settlement which we all desire and which has been postponed too long. If we have not time to settle the whole question, at any rate let us treat fairly and equally the industrial areas along with the agricultural areas.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): I will immediately say a word on the subject that the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) has broached, and in answer to a question asked yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman). It is quite true that the assessment of agricultural land will be reduced From one-half to one-fourth, and it is the intention of the Government that this provision shall take effect as from the beginning of the financial year. The precise methods of carrying it out will vary in different parts of the country, but such adjustments will he made as to ensure that, although farmers will have to meet current demand notes, they will subsequently receive the benefit for the whole year. Corresponding arrangements will be made to meet the case of Scotland. The whole subject will be raised and can be discussed, I hope, in the Agricultural Debate, and, at any rate, it will have to be when the Estimate is presented, for this purpose; but as it will be a Supplementary Estimate, I rely on its being met, as I rely on other Supplementary Estimates being met this year, out of savings.

Mr. THOMSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman say why he is differentiating by giving to agriculture what he is denying to industry?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would ask the ion. Member to put that question to the Minister in charge, namely, the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. THOMSON: You are finding the money.

Mr. BALDWIN: It will arise on the Estimate it has nothing to do with the.Budget.
During the last two days and a half we have had, I think, a very interesting discussion, and my part has been.a not wholly unpleasant one, because,.although there has, naturally, been a good deal of criticism, it has come from three distinct parts of the Committee, and from the moment when I sat down until the moment when I rise, some one of those -three parts has been devoting its time to demolishing the arguments of one of the others. That makes my task very much the more easy, and reminds me, or at any rate I do see a resemblance, which hon. Members who recollect it will also see, between the proceedings of the last two days and a half and the famous three-cornered duel in "Mr. Midshipman Easy." I only hope that no hon. Member has suffered during the fight as the boatswain did on that occasion.
I should like to begin by alluding to one or two of the criticisms or perhaps inquiries would be a better term, which were made from the Front Opposition Bench by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). I think the first point upon which he addressed a question to me was as to the arrears of Income Tax and Super-tax. The figure he rightly gave for last year as £122,500,000, and, for the information of the Committee, I may say that at the beginning of the current financial year the figure was nearly £30,000,000 less, namely, about £94, 000,000. I think, however, that the most interesting point raised by the right hon. Gentleman was one that comes very closely home to the Exchequer, namely, the provision of interest in the Budget for charges on short money. The right hon. Gentleman expressed a fear that the current year might see rates rise. He thought they might be raised to very nearly twice the figure at which they stand to-day.

Mr. ASQUITH: I did not say I thought that. I said there was a possibility of it.

Mr. BALDWIN: There is always a possibility, but I would say, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman, that the provision I have made to meet that charge, which of course is a large one, is one which I hope will be sufficient for the; current year unless something. abnormal occur. I have made a more
substantial provision than would be required if the present low rates lasted throughout, the 12 months, but I think we must bear this in mind, that, if there is going to be what I may call an abnormal increase in such rates, it can arise only from one of two causes, or possibly from a combination of those two causes. The first is that we might have such a rise of prices in America as would pull prices in this country along with them. But if that happen we shall have the dollar and 'the pound once again on an equality, and in that case we shall save in two ways—in the amount of interest we pay on the American debt, and the community as a whole will save on the lower cost, of buying dollars for the purchase of commodities to he consumed in this country. We may say that probably, looking over the country as a whole, it is very nearly as broad as it is long. But if we have the other cause operating, either by itself or in conjunction with America, namely, a revival of trade which will lead to such a demand for money as would send rates up, then, of course, we gain more directly in that we should almost at once get the benefit in the consumption of goods subject to Customs and Excise, and we should also get, although, of course, lagging behind, an improvement in Income Tax which would be very welcome at a later date.
7.0 P.M.
There was one other point. My right hon. Friend thought my provision of Sinking Fund rather meagre, and spoke of the days before the War, when, as he truly said, the average amount devoted to that purpose ran from 1 per cent. to 1; per cent. of the total debt. Of course, that, is a different criticism from that which I received from other quarters of the Committee, and I will say something about that later. The circumstances have changed since my right hon. Friend was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we have to deal to-day with a debt ten times as large. We have also to deal with a country suffering from burdens of taxation which were unknown in those happy days when he administered our finances. We are also suffering from—though, I believe, passing through—one of the greatest trade depressions that has ever oppressed this country. All those circumstance have to be taken into account, and I can only conclude, from the fact that two sections of my critics—that is, two-thirds of the
triangular duel—think I am providing too little, and that the other third think I am providing too much, that I am probably not far from the happy mean. I would only add this, that it will be perfectly competent, I think I may say, for my successor, when he receives large sums of money on account of German reparation, to pay them towards the redemption of debt.
There was one point rather allied to this which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Sir A. Mond). He wanted some information about debts from the Dominions. I may tell the Committee, in a few words, how these debts stand. The Canadian debt, as I said in my Budget. statement, is practically settled.. The Australian and New Zealand debts are funded, and interest is bsing regularly received, to the amount of at out £6,000,000 a year. The South African debt, as regards a substantial portion, has been paid off. The rest has been funded, and we are receiving in respect of it rather more than £500,000 a year in interest. I am sure the Committee will feel that, as far as those debts are concerned, we are receiving from the Dominions the treatment which we should expect from men of our own race and kindred.
Perhaps here I may allude to one or two points raised by the hon. Member for Coins Valley (Mr. Snowden). As he truly said we shall have opportunities later on of discussing his great remedium, and there would be hardly time to-night to go into the particulars of a capital levy. There are two or three things which he said, however, that deserve a passing word of comment. Here again the triangular duel comes in. The hon. Member says that I have sacrificed sound finance to political expediency. Some friends of mine wish I had done so more, and thus it is impossible to satisfy everybody. The hon. Member said that I was taking a risk in giving as many reductions as I have done. There I follow the example of my predecessor and I have followed it with open eyes. I am taking a certain amount of risk, but at times like this, when correct estimating is almost an impossibility, when I see trade turning and when I believe that the sound policy I am pursuing in my Budget is going to help the trade of this country, -it is a risk that I may reasonably take,
and I am not afraid to face the results next year, should I be here. Nor do I feel apprehensive, should someone else be in this place, that he will have to deal with a situation which will he too much for him.
Where I do rather take exception to what the hon. Member for Colne Valley said was when he spoke about the concession we are making to the Income Tax payer. I bear this in mind. that during the stress of war-time, in one of those difficult financial years, the direct taxpayer was called upon for 80 per cent. of the revenue raised in the 12 months. In my opinion, and in that of the majority of the Committee—I know, not in my hon. Friend's opinion--it is only just that those who have contributed so heavily should, when it is possible, get some respite from their burdens. Among the Income Tax payers are large numbers of the middle class, the class which has been more hit by taxes and high prices than almost any class in this country. I think that this sum of 6d., although people who are so familiar with large figures now, look down on 6d. and say it is nothing, will be a real relief; and I hope the Committee will think so too. But when the hon. Member for Colne Valley points out, as though I were doing a grievous thing, that the rich man who pays Income Tax gets more by a remission of taxation than the poor man, I must remind him that, unfortunately, you cannot help, if you reduce any tax, the person who has been paying the larger amount of the tax getting the greater relief. It is exactly the same with every tax. I mean, for example, that the gentleman who drinks a gallon of beer a. day would save eightpence, but the gentleman who drinks a. pint would save only one penny. In that also it is a question of taxable capacity.
There was one other thing which the hon. Member for Colne Valley said. He said, and of course there is an element of truth in it, that high taxation makes people work harder at their business to make an income. The hon. Member brought forward the sacrosanct name of John Stuart Mill, so I will copy his example. I remember that Mill wrote a chapter devoted to the Law of Diminishing Returns, and my impression now is--hon. Members must forgive me if my memory is rusty, for it is 30 years since I looked at it—that he said," You might go on,
on a piece of land, increasing the doses of manure, and getting more and more crops, until a certain time came when the manure failed to act; you spent too much money; and your crops went back." He called that the Law of Diminishing Returns. The same thing is exactly true about taxing a. man. If you give him too many doses of manure, he will stop work. I am quite sure we have got to that point when the Law of Diminishing Returns is beginning to act, and I shall get increased returns by reducing the burden which has been put on him.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley felt that I was doing a wrong thing in offering any remission on beer. He took the view that these high duties on liquor have been the greatest ally, or some word to that effect, of the temperance reformer. In other words, he looked on penal taxation as effecting a moral improvement in the State. There is something to be said for that, but if the hon. Member really believes that, why is he going to oppose a tax on betting? He laid the greatest stress on that—a matter which is still sub judice. He said he would he bitterly opposed, and so would all the respectable people in this country, to a tax of that nature, because it was, in effect, pandering to the evil thing. I cannot quite see how he differentiates, in that very subtle and acute mind of his, the position as between beer and betting.
I had hoped, because Hope springs eternal in the human breast.," for a little expressed pleasure when I announced something off the price of beer. One does not go to work in the dark, and I hoped f was meeting the wishes of the Labour party. It is true that in this new House I have not had the pleasure of hearing many of them sneak on this subject, but I carefully examined the remarks of two old friends of mine, if I may so call them, who I think the Labour party would own are efficient members of their party. One was the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) and the other was the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne). They have both spoken within the last few months, with that native vigour which they both enjoy in so marked a degree, expressing almost an ardent desire for such a reduction, not, I freely admit, for themselves, but for
their constituents. In the same way the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. Sitch)—I hope he will not think I am saying anything unkind when I say I believe that he represents rather the intellectuals of the party—I say that with no malice, for I never represented intellectuals of any party—he said the other day, in his constituency, that he voted last year for a reduction, and he promised that if, in regard to the next Budget, the Chancellor saw a ghost of a chance of reducing the duties, he should support such a reduction whole-heartedly. I did think I should have had some support, and I must confess that I am disappointed.
What has been said on that subject?" If you are going to make reductions to help people—the poorer people—do not give it on beer, but give it on sugar." I am afraid I shall have to ask the careful attention of the Committee for a few minutes while I give them the reasons which made me, after very grave consideration, refuse to give a concession on sugar in the current financial year. When I say that, let me add that when I first began to examine the Budget position, there was no article that I was more anxious to relieve. I am quite convinced—not that what I am going to say will move a single vote—of this, that most hon. Members of the Committee will realise, at any rate, that I have some reason for the attitude have taken up. They are not obliged to support it, but the responsibility is mine.
I think it is a useful thing to remember, in the first place, what the consumption of sugar is in this country. In 1913 it amounted to a consumption of 83 lbs. per head. During the period of control following upon the War, of course, it fell considerably. That is no guide to the position to-day, but it, may interest hon. Members to know that it fell between 50 and 60 lbs. In 1922, after control had been taken off, even at the high prices then ruling, and even with the present duty, the consumption per head was no less than 75 lbs.—much nearer the pre-War figure than I could have imagined until saw the figures.
The next figure I would ask the Committee to seize on is the figure of the world production, and this is a figure which it is possible to estimate closely. I am giving no figures except those which
can be estimated closely. The world production in the two or three years before the War was about 18,500,000 tons, and out of that Europe, with its beet sugar, produced over 8,000,000 tons. For the current year the sugar production is estimated at about 18,000,000 tons, and such stocks as are carried over from year to year are already being eaten into by the demand. Now the position is a very different one, for in the intervening years the centre of gravity has shifted to America. The European beet sugar production, which was just over 8,000,000 tons in 1913, is now down to just under 5,000,000 tons, whereas Cuba, which formerly produced 1,500,000 tons, and just before the War 2,500,000 tons, on account of the preference she has had in the United States, has increased her' production to 4,000,000 tons. One more factor, and I have nearly done. While our consumption, although below that of pre-War days, is yet approximating to it, American consumption has gone up by leaps and bounds, partly due to the increase of population and the increase of wealth in that country, and partly due to the increased amount of sugar which the human system seems to require when deprived of alcoholic liquor. In passing, may I advise the Committee to wait for complete prohibition in this country until there is once more a surplus of sugar, or they may find that by giving up acohol and taking to sugar they are indeed casting a real burden on the masses of the people.
Having given those figures, I wish to call attention to the price of sugar. Fifteen months ago the price of raw Cuban sugar was 10s. 6d. a cwt. One effect of that cheap price was to prevent any increase in the already enormously reduced sowings in the European beet countries, and those low prices held for some little time. But gradually, all through 1922, the price crept up as the dealers saw a possibility of world consumption catching up if not overtaking the world production, and in January, 1923, the price was 17s. 6d. per cwt. It remained there or thereabouts for about three weeks, when it became obvious that the Cuban sugar crop was going to be far below the estimate, arid prices then began to move up strongly. They moved up almost week by week until yesterday the price was 30s. 3d. per cwt., or three times more than the price in January, 1922.
This rise has been caused entirely by the fact that so far as can he seen there is actually going to be a shortage of sugar this year and the slightest increase in the demand may easily cause a panic and send up prices rocketing far beyond the present price. This position is well known in commercial circles, and I should like to read a short paragraph from the commercial supplement of the "Manchester Guardian" of last week:—
 The initial investigation which is going on in the United States into the recent rapid rise in prices is not expected to produce much by way of remedy, at any rate so far as this side is concerned, for the New York bankers have too tight a grip on Cuban supplies to he loosened very quickly. A lowering of the duty is therefore unlikely to benefit anybody but the Cubans for some time to come. The high prices now ruling, however, have induced larger sowings of the beetroot crop on the Continent and in the United States, so that by the end of the year there will be a different complexion on things should the weather be favourable.
I have information confirming this, that the increase of sowings in the Continental countries of Europe, stimulated by the high prices, is as much as from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent., so that, as far as we can see, by the turn of next year the world price of sugar should be lower, and when this happens, that will be the time to reduce the duty. If I were to reduce the duty in this Budget, the whole of that reduction would go straight to New York, and I am not going to do it. It would be a very easy thing for me to have proposed this reduction, and to have said in public that. sugar was cheap-'r by the reduction of the duty. Let those hon. Members who might have believed that to he true say it, but I do not believe it to be true, and, therefore, I am not going to say it.
A point was raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for West Swansea on which I must just touch. He poured contempt on the idea of any of the money obtained by debt redemption finding its way to trade, but I think the fallacy that underlay his objection arises from this: He was thinking of gilt-edged securities as they used to exist before the War. The gilt-edged securities which are being redeemed to-day, and which must be redeemed in the next few years, are the short-term maturing War Bonds, and those are held largely by people who saved to do it during the War, who made sacrifices in
many cases to do it, who will be only too glad to get the money back, and who will look round for the most advantageous way of employing it to give them a better return; moreover, these bonds are held very largely by industrial corporations of all kinds, who bought them for reserve funds and similar purposes. In the case of redemption, the money will go straight back to trade.
I have spoken several times about the way in which criticisms of my speech made in various parts of the House have been most providentially answered by other parts, but I must all the same say a few words for myself. I want to say something about criticisms which were levelled against my scheme for the Sinking Fund by my old friends and colleagues in the late Government. I was not a bit surprised at the criticisms brought against, me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), nor the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans), nor the right hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea, but I was broken-hearted at the criticisms of the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young). I could not help remembering passages from a book which has been my Bible—a book in which he lays down the sound finance of debt redemption in words that I could never emulate, and where in a moment of emotion and enthusiasm he leaves plain prose for allegory. The words of his allegory I must give to the Committee:
What is the good,' Chancellor By-ends says to Prime Minister Halt-by-the-Way, of keeping up this year such an absurdly large provision for the redemption of debt. So much was never meant to be spent in the service of high and dry financial morality except in an ordinary year, and this is no ordinary year.'
Just as "Charley's aunt" was no ordinary woman.
 There is our Better Circumvallation of Cuckoos (England) Act for which money has to be found, or what of the By-Election of Gotham? 'Very true,' says the other. This year the Cuckoos and next year it will be time enough to get to work on the debt again.' So the Sinking Fund is raided and when next year comes yet higher walls have to be built round the elusive birds and the renewal of provision for redemption is postponed to another year.
If I spoke from now till the moment when I lose my seat I could not improve on that. After all, when my right hon.
Friend the Member for Hillhead quotes authorities like Parnell and Disraeli I really do not think it is worth while pointing out to him the differences in the circumstances. I would merely give him a quotation, which I think is quite as good as the ones he gave—a quotation I find in a recently published book from a letter from Sir Michael Hicks-Beach to Sir William Harcourt, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach and Sir William Harcourt were well known to this House for generations and were highly respected and revered, not only by their parties, but by the whole House. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach wrote to Sir William Harcourt, perhaps in words that he would not have unemployed in this Committee.
The surplus you have provided bids fair to be really alarming, and all mouths are opening wide. There will, as you say, be plenty of squeaking next Spring.
It is a most remarkable thing how history repeats itself. The problem of Parnell and Disraeli was a simple one. They had a small debt to deal with; they had no maturities to speak of, and a consolidated debt with no fixed term. I have to redeem by contract. As I said in my opening remarks, I believe that I have struck the happy mean, because I have failed to satisfy any of my critics.
Let me say in a few sentences why I make the modest proposal as to the Sinking Fund which I do, a proposal to which I intend to adhere. Let me remind the Committee, first of all, that. Treasury Bills now in London can be had on three months at a shade under 21 per cent. Let me remind the Committee that for short date borrowing in Paris they are paying 3 per cent. for a month, 4 per cent. for three months, and 5 per cent. for 32 months. In New York the rediscount rate is 41 per cent., and 90 days commercial paper, 5 per cent. to 51 per cent. Our bank rate is 3 per cent. for private borrowing, bank bills, 21 per cent., and trade bills, 2 per cent. In Paris the bank rate is 5 per cent., while bills on 90 days acceptances in New York are 41 per cent. No figures could testify more than these to the financial stability of London.

Sir R. HORNE: That was all done in a year in which the Sinking Funds were suspended.

Mr. BALDWIN: It is true that my right hon. Friend suspended the Sinking Fund for a year, but he made it well
known last year that it was for a year and a year only, and these Sinking Funds have, in point of fact, been paid out of revenue. After all, as I said before, this is really an insurance.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) complained about the Treasury Circular which was circulated two years ago over the signature of my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, in which the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain) said that £100,000,000 a year would be necessary for debt redemption. Circumstances have changed since then owing to the rise in the prices of securities. We have not to provide the sums now that were needed then. In 1920–21 we had to provide £32,000,000 for the Depreciation Fund on the 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. War Loan, and £84,000,000 on account of securities proffered for Death Duties and Excess Profits Duty. In 1923–24 the Depreciation Fund is not required, and all that has to be provided is £7,500,000 on account of the surrender of Victory Bonds. If it were still the fact that the prices of securities had remained where they were when that circular was written, we should have had to provide £64,000,000 this year for the latter object, and £32,000,000 for the first. In all, in addition to what I have provided, we should have had to find very nearly £90,000,000. That has been saved by the appreciation of stocks, which has been produced principally from the fact that the finance of our country is so sound, and that we have steadily pursued the redemption of debt both by the old and the new Sinking Funds.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester complained at the size of the surplus of last year and that it had been applied to the redemption of Debt. He forgot that he was a member of the Government which in 1920 made the alteration which rendered the surrender immediately possible in 1920, and in that financial year the surplus of £230,000,000 which had accrued went directly to the redemption of Debt, a transaction to which, as far as I know, he raised no objection at the time. Let us never forget what I said in my Budget statement, that we have £1,300,000,000 of Bonds maturing during the next six or seven years, and £2,100,000,000 of debt which may be converted if circumstances are favourable in
1929. My modest Sinking Fund is a contribution to aid in these conversions when they arise and to help my successor to undertake them successfully. I believe that only by maintaining this position during the next few years can we play our part in helping to secure cheap money and keeping up the price of these securities, producing thereby the considerable saving which we are enjoying and which we have enjoyed in the past year. It is quite true that if there should come a great demand for money for trade we might have rates going up and we might have the gilt-edged securities falling; therefore, the cheaper we can keep money now and the higher the price of gilt-edged securities before that happens, the more chance we shall have when the trade revival does come of finding that our securities will maintain themselves in such a position that we shall not be called upon to provide a depreciation fund. In the meantime, and let us be happy in this, the higher the price of securities the more money I shall get in Death Duties. That is a consideration not to be forgotten. I must apologise for having kept the Committee much longer than I had intended. I am afraid that I have had to treat the latter part of my subject with much greater brevity than I had intended, but there are other hon. Members who wish to speak, and I will now leave the course open for them.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I feel sure the Committee has listened with great interest to the second statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I cannot help thinking that it was a curious anomaly that here was a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer quoting an independent Liberal newspaper in support of his Budget. I am becoming rather suspicious after his two quotations from the "Manchester Guardian" that we shall have not only unity between the two wings of the Liberal party, but possibly unity between the Conservative party and the two Liberal parties. We have the strange case of a Chancellor of the Exchequer bringing forward a Conservative Budget based on "Morning Post" principles, supported by quotations from the "Manchester Guardian." I should like to know how the Chancellor can square his principles with the quotations he has given to the Committee. I want to make a comment or two on his reply to the Debate, He
has made one concession, strangely enough on a point that was hardly mentioned in the whole of the Budget Debate. The Debate turned round two or three main principles. The first was that hon. Members opposite claimed that the reduction in the rate of Income Tax would help industry. We had the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. W. Greenwood) bringing to bear upon the discussion the classical example of the Lancashire cotton industry. He said that the, Lancashire cotton industry was in a bad state because taxation was heavy upon the taxpayer. I wish he were in his place. Every hon. Member for Lancashire will agree that it matters very little to Lancashire whether the Income. Tax be 5s. or 2s. so long as people from Lancashire take out machinery to India and manufacture there goods of the same type and quality that were manufactured in Lancashire many years ago. The 'problem of Lancashire is not the problem of Income Tax at all. I bow to the greater knowledge of some hon. Members opposite of the cotton industry; but from my superficial knowledge, what is wrong with the industry is this: that those countries to which we used to export cotton manufactured goods prior to the War learned, during the War, how to manufacture for themselves. For every three yards of English cotton manufactured goods exported to India prior to the War we are only sending to that great continent now one yard of the same quality. Therefore the question of income Tax has very little to do with the industrial prosperity of Lancashire.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made one concession, and that concession is in relation to the revision of the assessment of agricultural land. I wonder how he came to give a concession of that kind, if he is influenced in the least by Debates in this House. The strongest arguments that have been used have been in favour of the reduction of the Sugar Duty and those of us on these benches who represent the working classes feel this, that the men who will be delighted because there is a penny a pint off beer would, for the sake of their families, prefer a reduction in the Sugar Duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer read quotations, but he did not in this case give us the name of the newspaper from which he was
quoting figures in regard to sugar prices. If his arguments in relation to the price of sugar are good and substantial, why does he not give a reduction in the duty on tea where the same conditions do not apply? I can understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer stating that because of certain conditions prevailing in connection with sugar he is afraid that a reduction in the duty might increase the price all over the country, but if that be correct what is the case in regard to tea? Those conditions do not apply to tea, and we did expect that he would have given us some concession on that score.
I want to make some observations on his endeavour to reply to the proposal for a capital levy. He rather escaped giving any reply at all. I hope that we shall have a statement from him on some future date giving his own point of view on this subject. Every Member on this side was returned to Parliament in the main because of his advocacy of the capital levy. When I was asked what was the effect on my constituents because of my advocacy, I could reply that there were few, if any, persons in the whole of my division worth £6,000 to start with. But I pointed out this fact, that during the War the Government said to the young men: "We deem you to be soldiers. We deem you to he in the Army, irrespective of whether you like it or not." I think that it was Sir William Harcourt, who instituted the Death Duties, who stated that "as you rich people will have no political influence whatever when you ate dead, I will tax the estates that you leave behind you." I think it fair to state that all the capital levy means is, that we shall deem all persons who have an estate worth over £5,000 to be dead in order to claim the capital levy from their estates while living: and if that principle was good enough in relation to human life during the War, then it is good enough in relation to property and income.
I was astonished at another argument put forward in debate, that if we relieve taxation we should immediately secure better employment for our people. I want to combat that idea, because I have had brought to my notice this case, that on the very day on which a private capitalist firm in this country issued its balance sheet showing that there was an increase in profit from 10 per cent. to 12½ per cent., the wages of the work-people were reduced by 10 per cent: I
have yet to learn that there is any -real connection between profits and wages, and between Income Tax and providing employment. I have never yet found that connection. I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young) in his place, be-cause he said that a Capital Levy is, as it were, turning a flood into a garden in order to water your roses. I think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to try his hand at poetry for a while, for I feel sure that he would succeed. But when we speak of a Capital Levy, we are not tabbing of a. garden of roses. The world to-day is more like a rubbish heap. It is like a sunburnt desert. The flood of capital of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke ought to come into that, desert, or on to that heap of rubbish. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman did justice to himself on this occasion, because I have also been reading his book through, and I have always looked upon it as a standard of how to deal with our national finances. He lays down very good principles which I do not think he helped to carry out when he himself was in office. He says:
 A wise man who wishes to control an institution such as a hospital or board of guardians makes it his business to become chairman of the finance committee. Who pleases then linty he patron or president.
That is a good piece of philosophy, and I take it that that was the reason why the right hon. Gentleman was so satisfied when he acted as Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the last Government. The idea has prevailed in the whole Debate that you can measure a nation's comfort and prosperity by the amount of share capital which some of its inhabitants possess. I think that is wrong. What I fail to understand is why no Chancellor of the Exchequer up to now seems to have taken any notice of this very important fact, which annoys rue at any rate. If I remember rightly the number of persons in this country prior to the War in receipt of over £5,000 per annum was 14,000 odd. The War came, and millions of young men went to the War and were injured, bruised or maimed, and thousands of them were killed; but in spite of the fact that the mass of the population descended into destitution and poverty the 14,000 persons increased in number to about 25,000. It seems to me that it is the bounden duty of a Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer to search for and pursue those persons who in the time when the nation was in agony made a profit our of the blood and misery of the people. I am very disappointed that no Chancellor of the Exchequer has yet devised means to deal with that class of person.
Then I think that we ought to revise our opinion in reference to people who own money and have assured incomes. There is now a little island of people—they may be half a million or a million—who are receiving permanent incomes from investments in War Loan, by which they can be comfortable for the whole of their lives and their children after them. We talk of the luxurious splendour of the West End. If we come down to the City any afternoon we find people queueing up between 4 and 5 o'clock waiting for theatres to open. They live on that little island of population with sufficient of the world's goods, made out of the War, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done his duty he would make those people pay, because they ought to pay, more than they have done for the cost of the last War.
There is a very old fallacy, and I am surprised that intelligent Members of Parliament should repeat it, that if a rich man owns four or five motor cars he does his duty to the community, because he finds work for the man who makes the motor-cars. That is a strange view! The view on this side of the house is that the man who makes those four or five motor-cars would be better unemployed in manufacturing boots and clothes and building houses for the people, and we hope that that principle will some day become the law of the land. If the Chancellor has not been influenced in the least by what I have said up to now, perhaps he may be influenced by this point with regard to the Beer Tax. He is giving to the brewers in effect 20s. out of every 24s. I have been wondering whether he can give a smaller percentage to the brewers and devote a little of the amount which he will gain by that means to reducing the Sugar or the Tea Tax, or both. This suggestion ought to receive his attention before the Debates on the Budget close.
I was rather surprised that the Chancellor made no reply to the criticisms from this side of the House that land, or some land, land owned by some people,
at any rate, ought to come under his review. I may give a simple illustration of how it works out. About seven miles from this House there is an ordinary cottage, three up and two down, [...]anding on about 450 square yards of land. Before it was built on, that land was not even good enough to be used for agricultural purposes. To-day, the young man who lives in that house pays £12 per annum ground rent, and that £12 is payable for eternity so far as I san see; and the man who gets the £12 lives in affluence because he has land upon which about 120 such cottages have been built. I have never made land taxation a fetish as some people have done, but I am convinced that if a Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to balance his Budget in future, and wants to provide the money for our social services, as they ought to be carried on, he has got to go to the source of all things that maintain life, and that is land, and there I think he he will find sufficient money with which to carry on the work of the State.
Reverting for a moment to the speech of the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Newbold), I was surprised at his modesty. He told the Committee that the Labour party was not revolutionary enough, and he demanded a sum of £200,000,000 in one year for reconstruction work. I have no desire to enter into a contest with him as to the policy of the Labour party and his own, but the Labour party would not be satisfied with £200,000,000. They would not be satisfied with £500,000,000 for reconstruction work, and in that connection I think that the Communist party is very much more tame than the Labour party in connection with social services and work of reconstruction. I trust that before we conclude the Debates on the Budget the Chancellor's heart may yet be touched in connection with reduction of the tax on sugar and tea, and that, if he cannot see his way to do one, he will at any rate do the other, because the women folk in the working-class homes will not think the taking of 1d. a point off beer a compensation for not reducing the tax on sugar and tea.

Lieut.-Colonel STEPHENSON: There are one or two points which, though they may have been touched upon in this Debate, I would like, even at this late stage, to emphasise. On the occasion of
last year's Budget I ventured to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) on the fact that his was the first Budget after the War which did anything to remove those feelings of gloom and depression which its forerunners had done so much to create and maintain. That Budget did something to relieve the necessities of all classes, and to restore that feeling of confidence which is no necessary in the business world, and especially to employers of labour. I would like now to join my congratulations to those which have been showered on the present Chancellor of the Exchequer on what he has done both by word and deed to maintain that position. At the same time, frankly, I am wofully disappointed, as other speakers have expressed themselves, as regards both the range and the extent of the remissions in taxation which he has felt himself justified in offering. I consider that with the example of the last year before him, especially in regard to the reductions in expenditure, which were found possible during the past year, and in view of his declared intentions to make further economies, I do certainly think he might have taken his courage in both hands instead of taking what appears to me to be the timid course be has adopted.
8.0 P.M.
During the Debate on last year's Budget I joined with Mr. Stanley Holmes, the then representative for North-east Derbyshire, in criticising the Chancellor of the Exchequer for under-estimating his income and over-estimating his expenditure, and in both respects I think we were right, more especially in the latter. I am not concerned to discuss the rival methods of debt redemption or reduction of taxation, for the simple reason that, in my judgment, both are necessary, and we must have both in full measure. I am not inclined to shed many tears over the fact that last year was a bumper year for debt redemption. I did not approve of the suspension of the Sinking Fund last year. I thought it both wrong and unnecessary, and I said so. Therefore, I am not at all sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has on this occasion set aside a definite sum for debt redemption. In contradistinction to some of my friends, I congratulate him on having resisted the temptation to do otherwise. But, after congratulating him so far, I am
afraid I must part company with him to some extent. I cannot reconcile his estimated results or his remissions of taxation with his known aspirations and his known good intentions. It appears to me that no one can dispassionately compare the cost of Government to-day with the cost of Government the year before the War, without realising that the increase is not only very great but unreasonably great. Those of us who have to run businesses, know we have to pay more for running them than we did before the War, but the question is one of degree. We know the cost of living is now something like 76 per cent. above the cost in 1913–14. I think the cost of commodities is something like 50 per cent greater than pre-War, and the cost of labour has been rapidly falling in the last two years, but, in spite of this, the cost of Government remains abnormally high, and it bears no proportion to the increase in cost of other things.
No one who makes a comparison between the cost of Government now and the cost of Government in the year before the War—even if he be a Chancellor of the Exchequer—can fail to realise the necessity for still further great reductions. Whether we look at the Civil Service Estimates or those for our defensive forces, the comparison tells its own tale, and I do not think we derive much comfort when we examine the Estimates in detail and find out what more we are getting for the increased expenditure we have to vote. Nobody desires to see our fighting services underpaid. Certainly I do not, but having regard to the falling market and the general trend of things and the great reduction of remuneration which our workers have had to accept in civilian life, in conjunction with having to face the whole of the increase of the cost of living, it does appear to me that the increase of remuneration of 150 per cent. which rules in the Navy over the year 1914 is an unreasonably great increase. I admit the pay of the Navy in 1914 was too low and that a reasonable increase is necessary, but I do think 150 per cent. is as much too high as the rate before the War was too low. And what is the result? We not only get these swollen Estimates of which I complain, but we also get a Navy which is reduced, in the opinion of some of the soundest critics, below the margin of safety. Instances could be multiplied, and I give
this only as a sample. Then there is the vast expenditure of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour as compared with the Departments which discharged their functions, or many of their functions, before the War, and I think there is room there for great economy. I wonder if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given sufficient consideration to the point that if he could only give a real fillip to trade and set trade on its legs by a reduction of taxation, he would do a great deal to reduce unemployment to a minimum if not to a vanishing point and save a great deal of the cost; of the Ministry of Labour? I should like to quote what Mr. Gladstone said on one occasion. Mr. Gladstone in 1859 complained of the extravagance of the Government of that day, and he dated it from the Russian war. I think we may date the extravagance of which I am now complaining from the Great War from which we recently emerged. In 1863, four years later, Mr. Gladstone, addressing this House, said:
 Together with the so-called increase in expenditure there grows up what may be termed a spirit of expenditure which insensibly and unconsciously perhaps but really affects the spirit of the people, the spirit of Parliament, the spirit of the public departments, and perhaps even the spirit of those whose duty it is to submit Estimates to Parliament.
I do not think that if Mr. Gladstone had lived to see the Estimates which have recently been placed before this House he would have found it necessary to qualify the suggestion that this spirit of expenditure affects those whose duty it is to submit Estimates to Parliament.
As I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, he admits that his Estimates are too high and he proposes to effect reductions in them. Where there is a will there is a way, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is as good as his word, I venture to say that a return to something like the spirit and atmosphere of Gladstonian finance would point the way to these reductions. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much he is expecting to save by his proposed economies and what he is proposing to do with the money. I do not think he has taken any credit for those economies he proposes to make. It seems to me that if economies are to be effected as I believe they can be, at anything like the same rate this year as last year, there
will be again a large surplus. Looking at the income side of the account the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Revenue last year was largely increased by payments of arrears in Income Tax, but he has not told us what arrears are now outstanding both as regards Income Tax and Super-tax, and what proportion he expects to get this year. I think the Chancellor has under-estimated what he can get from Income Tax and Super-tax.
The only other point I wish to mention is the question of the debts due to us by our Allies and by our Dominions apart from German reparations. I have on two occasions put questions to him in regard to the debts of our Allies, France and Italy, and I cannot say that I received very satisfactory answers, because I have been referred in each case to an answer given to questions I did not ask, and I considered the answers quite irrelevant. We have been called upon to pay our debt to the United States, and we have entered into a funding operation. Whatever disputes there may be on points of detail. I think that directly or indirectly that debt to the United States would not be in existence to-day if we had not lent sums exceeding that amount to France and Italy. It seems to me that the natural corollary to the funding of the American Debt by ourselves would have, been to ask the French and Italian Governments to undertake similar operations as regards the money owing to us, and I think the time has come when the Chancellor of the Exchequer must put his cards on the table, and when he should separate, the question of these debts from the question of reparations—with which, I submit, they have nothing whatever to do—and when he should press for repayment. If these debts are bad debts he ought to tell us what applications have been made for payment. We ought to know that. In all the circumstances I cannot divest myself of the impression that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has over-estimated expenditure and under-estimated his income. Although playing for safety may be laudable when dealing with the country's finances, it appears to me that to over-estimate expenditure is to put a premium on extravagance, because it removes the spur from Government Departments in the way of economy. I venture to say that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had remitted
1s. off the Income Tax, abolished the Coporation Profits Tax, and given a reduction of the duty on sugar, he would have given great satisfaction. Although we are grateful for the small mercies vouchsafed to us, we would have welcomed the bolder course which I have ventured to indicate, and which I believe would have done an inestimable amount to increase the trade and prosperity of the country.

Mr. BALDWIN: rose in his place, and claimed to wave, "That the Question be now put."

Question,
 That it is expedient to amend the law relating to tire National Debt, Customs, and Inland Revenue (including Excise), and to make further provision in connection with Finance,

put accordingly, and agreed to.

Resolution to he reported To-morrow; Committee to sit To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — POSITION OF PROFESSIONAL WORKERS.

Mr. R. MURRAY: I beg to move,
 That, in view of the worsening conditions of middle-class professional workers. and of time advantages resulting from the recognition of the organisations of manual workers and the practice of collective bargaining, this House is of opinion that local authorities, banks, insurance and shipping companies, and other employers of professional and clerical workers should follow the example of the Government in recognising the organisations of these workers.
I rise with considerable satisfaction to move this Resolution. I know that here, as elsewhere, there is an idea, very prevalent in the minds of a considerable section of people that so far as the questions of trade and commerce, the prices of commodities, wages and conditions of employment, are concerned, they should be outside the purview of this House. But the whole of the conditions of our modern life have become too complex and too much inter-related for matters affecting the well-being of large sections of the community to he so segregated and kept from the attention of the House. For long these questions have been invading our deliberations. It is no new matter for the House of Commons
to be asked to deal with the question of the wages of the workers and the conditions under which they are unemployed. The manual workers have over and over again come before this House and sought authority from the House to secure for themselves better and fairer conditions of employment. The miners, the engineers, the railwaymen, the seamen, the dockers and all classes of manual workers have sought consideration from this House. This is among the first occasions on which we have had the attention of Members directed to the condition of the professional workers, workers who are of immense importance and value to our industry as it is to-day, and, if that industry is to be developed to face the extremer competition and greater difficulties of the future, who will be of still more importance in the days to come. We want, therefore, to give some consideration to the position of the professional worker.
I am glad to be able to point, as a justification for this Motion, to the fact that the Government themselves have given recognition to the organisation of professional workers, and have granted to various sections of those who serve them opportunities for organisation, through the Whitley Councils, and in other ways which enable these individuals to stand up for what they consider to he of importance in their lives. The professional workers have been somewhat late in developing, so far as conscious organisation is concerned. Since this matter has been mooted, I know it has been said repeatedly that we on these Labour Benches have been engaged on the old job of trying to secure the support of the professional workers with no real intention of securing for them anything in return. It has been alleged that ours is a political move. I desire to say that those of us who have recognised in labour the one and indivisibly great machine upon which the whole of modern life depends, have all along declared that the professional worker, the worker of higher grade, of greater capacity and wider possibilities of influencing industry, is as much a part of the labour machine as the lowest paid and the least organised of the manual workers. But we could not interfere, nor could we seek to draw Parliament's attention to the matter until the professional worker reached the
point, now attained, of organising himself. "He that, would he free himself must strike the blow." It is now that the professional worker has become alive to the necessity of organising himself that we deem the time ripe for securing for him the recognition which the Government has given to civil servants and others who serve it, and the recognition which has been given to trade union organisations of one kind and another.
During the past few days circulars and letters of one kind and another have been issued to Members of this House in regard to this Motion. I have no doubt that many Members have been surprised at the extent to which the professional worker is organised. I have in my hand a list of the National Federation of Professional, Technical, Administrative and Supervisory Workers, an organisation which contains 400,000 men. The list indicates that, amongst a large number of organisations associated with that Federation, are the Amalgamated Managers and Foremen's Association, Architects and Surveyors, the Association of Engineering and Shipbuilding Draughtsmen, the Civil Service Confederation, the Electrical Power Engineers, the National Federation of Law Clerks, the Railway Clerks' Association, and so on. I quote these names to indicate the extent to which organisation amongst the professional workers has now gone. They have been long in realising the necessity for organisation in order to improve their own condition. Several reasons have stood between them and the realisation of that purpose. They have mostly been in small groups, widely scattered. Manual workers, on the other hand, have been congregated in large bodies and have more quickly realised the importance of organisation. The professional worker has had little or no support from his fellows, and, what is more important, he has often appeared to occupy a position which made him think that he was not of the workers, and that he did not need organisation to strengthen his position. He has worn a black coat, and because of that he has deceived other people and himself into thinking that he had no interests in common with the working classes and did not need organisation. He wore a black coat, but often behind the appearance of respectability and substantiality there was tragedy.
Behind the appearance of substantiality there has often been poverty and misery, so far as the man and his wife and his children were concerned. He deceived himself into thinking that all was well. He reminded me often of a lad whom I knew in my native town. He drove the doctor's gig. Someone said to him one day, "What wage do you get Willie?" He replied, "16s. a week." The questioner remarked," It is a terribly small wage," to which the answer was given, "Ah, but look at the drives you get." The professional worker, content often with a meagre allowance, regarded himself as above any necessity for organisation, because he looked like a gentleman. He was very much like a clubman and waiter whom it has been said you could easily mistake them for gentlemen. The professional workers have all along had to face the same difficulties as the manual workers. They have had to face the same scourge of unemployment, the same uncertainty as to the future, sometimes even smaller salaries and circumstances which made their position still more difficult. Whether we are going to develop our social system along the lines which some of us on these benches dream of, or whether we are going to go on under capitalism as it stands to-day. it is essential upon either plane that we should recognise these important workers and secure to them, as far as possible, stability and safeguards against the difficulties which they have to face along,with fairer and more reasonable salaries. If we are not going to do so, then we shall have a recurring condition of trouble and difficulty becoming more and more severe as these professional workers get a clearer idea of their position and their powers. We are going to have what our great Victorian Laureate described in the lines:
 That these two parties still divide the world.
Of those that want and those that have: and still
The same old sore breaks out from age to age
With much the same result.
How do we stand in regard to professional workers' organisations to-day? The Government have recognised the right of their professional workers who are organised. That is a tremendous advantage and has been of great value, but
it is not to be thought that from recognition by the Government alone there comes salvation for professional workers. Those who were in the House last week, when we had a discussion with regard to the Lytton entrants into the Civil Service, will know that, whilst they have been granted recognition, unfortunately, those who have hitherto controlled the machinery of Government have not always given these people that kindness and thought, sympathy and justice of which they so often speak. Otherwise we would not have had the report which we had here in regard to the Lytton entrants. Many of them were ex-Service men receiving salaries as low as £2 17s. and £2 13s. for a man with a wife and children. We want to see an extension of the principle which has been adopted in a small degree by Government Departments and the Civil Service of recognising professional workers' organisations. Those important and valuable institutions, the Whitley Councils, are at work to-day among the civil servants, and it is known to a great many hon. Members that the Civil Service has a National Whitley Council, with representatives not only of the workers themselves, but representatives of the Government, including, I believe, three Members of the present House of Commons. We want that principle strengthened and extended, and what the Government has done, so far as its own servants are concerned, we desire to see done generally. We desire that the Government and this House should exercise their influence by the adoption of this Resolution, and that that influence should be extended to all the great institutions and organisations which are running the affairs of industry in this country, so that they will follow in the Government's steps and give to the professional worker the recognition, assistance, sympathy, and encouragement which he has so long deserved, but which he is only now beginning to receive.
In addition to the local government officials of whom I have spoken, I should like briefly to direct attention to the fact that the public authorities of this country control a large number of important officials and servants and that, in many cases, justice is not meted out to those officials. Only a few weeks ago we had in this House a question relating to the appointment of a sanitary inspector in one of the English areas under a local
authority. The salary was to be £80 a. year to cover travelling expenses and with a prohibition which prevented the official carrying out individual or private work. I could quote other instances of the same kind. The, Sanitary Inspectors' Association had a meeting not very long ago at which they discussed many of the difficulties and injustices from which they are, suffering, and they sought to have a deputation received by the Board of Health with a view to having these grievances considered and remedied. All they got in response to their request was a blank refusal to meet them or to discuss their grievances. Surely, in view of all the organisation which is taking place, and the value of collective bargaining which every department of management and industry should realise to-day, it is putting back the hands of the clock for an important Government Department like the Board of Health to refuse to meet the representatives of a body so important in modern life as the officials and employés of a public authority to discuss grievances. One of the things we have yet to do is to create through the action of the Government and the influence of this House a spirit which will give justice and consideration to people in that position.
There are many other organisations to which I might refer. Some of those I have already named are associated with the Federation of Professional Workers, but there is one outstanding example or finely typical example to which reference may be made. I am thinking of that important body, the bank clerks of our country. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that for the smooth running of our commercial machine nothing is more important than that we should have peace and happiness and a harmoniously working organisation connected with the banking companies of this country. Everybody who knows anything of recent history so far as our banking houses are concerned, will know that for years past and at this moment the bank clerks of this country have been and are suffering injustices and hardships to which no body of manual workers would for a single instant submit. They have been trying to organise themselves in the teeth of an opposition so far as their employers are concerned, which is closely organised and of the most bitter type. These men have not been stirred up to
action by the "vulgar agitator." When trouble arises with labour there is always in the minds of those who dislike that sort of thing, a vision of some "vulgar agitator" playing upon ignorant minds and creating unrest about nothing at all.
These men are mostly well educated. They have had opportunities for consideration, for reading and understanding which have been denied to many of the manual workers. They have been closely in touch with the realities of life and they know the value of their own services, and the services of men like them, to the community. They have not been moved by the "vulgar agitator." They have been moved because of the conditions under which in recent years they have had to carry on their work and because they have found it impossible as individuals to secure that justice and fair play which they have a right to demand. So in recent years they have organised themselves and are still organising themselves into great bodies. But they have failed until now to secure that for which they have asked, the setting up of a Whitley Council or Councils which would enable their grievances and difficulties to be considered fairly and squarely and rectified if rectification be possible.

Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: Is the hon. Member aware that there is a union amongst the bank clerks, and that the great majority of the bank clerks have joined a union of their own, which has representation and is able to approach the boards?

Mr. MURRAY: I have been trying to explain that in recent years the bank clerks have created this organisation and joined in large numbers, but that, so far, their organisation has been rendered ineffective, because they have not had the opportunity of carrying it before their employers or of putting deputations and representations before their employers. What we are seeking for now is that this opportunity should be given to them. Let me remind the hon. Member and the House of what happened in Scotland—and the Scottish Bankers' Association has its analogous, brother organisation in England in the Bankers' Guild. In Scotland and in England, when the War came, no body of men went more freely to do their duty to the country than the bank clerks up and down the country,
and of those who remained, no body of men did their duty more carefully and with 1Pss demand for the advances which were being given to other people. But with the return of Peace, instead of finding all the good things which they had a right to expect from their employers, in Scotland in 1920 the salary which was being paid to bank clerks, after 10 years' service, amounted to the magnificent sum of £160 a year—in 1920, when the cost of living was 141 per cent. above that of 1914!
What happened? A great impetus was given to the necessity for organisation on the part of these bank clerks. They organised themselves, and sought to have justice done them by approaching their employers, but nothing was done. They came to the Ministry of Labour, and in conjunction with that Ministry they again appealed to their employers that Whitley Councils might be set up to consider their grievances. Again they were refused, and they were denied the recognition which was given to the dockers and labourers, and in Scotland it reached the point, unheard of as far as professional workers were concerned, that these bank clerks handed in their strike notices, and were on the eve of a strike, which would have dislocated the financial arrangements of our country. Then, as so often happens, the employers agreed to give some consideration to the question, and they proceeded to do it in the usual way of that half-hearted and forced concession. They proceeded to do it by picking out men here and there and making them certain offers, on condition that they would have nothing whatever to do with this organisation of the bank clerks, and others were warned that if they continued in this organisation their promotion, their superannuation, their increases of salary, would suffer in consequence.
Then they set up what were called internal guilds, tame cat organisations, the favourite process of those who desire to prevent the organisation of the workers —tame cat organisations, which were supposed to come, and be stroked, and purr as the employers desired them to do. Even these internal guilds, however, have begun to demand things which the banking associations of Scotland have refused to grant, and in 1922 these internal guilds asked for a revision of salary, but that was denied them, and, instead of a revi-
sion of their yearly salaries, they found that the last bit of bonus had disappeared. We know that it is the familiar stock in trade of employers, when an increase of salary is asked for on the part of the workers, or when they desire to lower the wages of the workers. to say, "We cannot afford it, because we are having no profits ourselves." This time, however, when these important professional workers are having their salaries reduced, the banks for which they are working in Scotland are declaring dividends of 17 per cent. and 18 per cent. There is no shortage of money, and there is no need to screw these men down because profits are not being made. Profits are being made, but, in spite of that, the intention is to reduce the status and conditions of these workers.
Let me remind the House also that this is not only a very important section of industry but it is a highly specialised one, and, because it is highly specialised, these men ought to have special consideration. Take a clerk in any kind of work outside the banks in the country, whether it be an iron works or a wool factory, and you can put him from one into the other, and in a comparatively short time the experience and knowledge gained in the one industry will serve him for the other; but the bank clerk is a highly specialised worker, and it is practically impossible, after he has served for 8, 10 or 12 years in a bank, to go out and find employment elsewhere. His difficulties, therefore, are infinitely greater, and there is all the more reason why he should be permitted to join together with his fellows in a great and strong union, and why that union should be recognised for the fair consideration of the conditions under which he works. There is something still worse with regard to the position of the bank clerks, and one of the things in regard to which, above all, he is desirous that his condition should be considered. Not only is he a highly specialised worker. who cannot very well leave the business of banking and take up other business, but in the banks in my country—I do not know how he stands in England —a clerk in one bank is not permitted, by the arrangements of the bankers, to leave the service of that bank and go to another. Once in one hank, always in one bank, and anyone can see to what an extent that reduces his freedom and the possibilities of his advancement.
Here is another important point. So far as these employers are concerned they have long been well organised for their own purposes, and corporate action is a thing they understand. The bankers have their own corporate funds and they meet together to consider their own interests and business, and yet they deny their employés the same liberty, the liberty of joining together for the purpose of meeting with them to discuss the questions that are of importance to them and that underlie the whole conditions of their livelihood. We suggest in this Resolution that the time has come when, instead of being mere small handfuls of unrelated individuals here and there, up and down the country, they should become a recognised part of the organisation of industry in this country, and that these great and important bodies should be permitted to organise and should be granted the fullest extent of recognition. Not very long ago we had a discussion in this House—and we shall have similar discussions later on—with regard to the relative advantages of public administration and employment, as against private administration and employment. I could quote the instance or a national bank, the Bank of New South Wales, a National Government bank, in which all these reasonable things that we are asking should be granted to the bank clerks of this country, and to all these other professional and technical workers, have been granted, under Government administration, and have turned out not merely of advantage to the bank clerks themselves, but of advantage to the bank as well.
I do not know that I could put the claim more clearly than it was put in one of the letters which have been circulated among hon. Members. In a letter issued to hon. Members by the Guild of Insurance Officials, this is stated:
 In urging you most earnestly to support such Resolution, I would remind you that the members of the organisations to which reference is made therein represent important sections of what is known as the middle-class community, whom economic conditions resulting from the War have almost literally compelled to combine for purposes of collective bargaining. At the same time, we are imbued with a desire to attain our quite legitimate aspirations by strictly constitutional means, though it is to be regretted that too many employers of professional and clerical workers still fail, or refuse, to appreciate the imperative need for associations of this character, whose
official recognition, I submit, is, in the highest sense, in the public interest.
I sincerely trust that this House will accept this Motion, and will recognise that any effort to hold back the organisation of these people will simply be one more attempt to sweep back an irresistible tide. Organisation amongst the workers has come to stay. For the whole of industry collective bargaining is the best thing we have, and, so far as the more important section of workers is concerned, it is still more imperative that recognition should be given to these men. I will make no use of this platform, as I might do, to point out to these black-coated workers that their interests are on the side of all workers; that they, more largely than those who think they own the machinery of production, govern and control that machinery, and, unless you are prepared to grant now this recognition, it may well be that you will precipitate a time when these men, who are the captains and generals of the Labour army of production, may take possession of the machinery which they now control and may carry argument to a stage beyond the constitutional action which they seek to employ now. I appeal, therefore, to this House to accept this Motion, and thereby to encourage great companies, public authorities, and all organisations which employ these important workers to grant their claim and give them an opportunity to get the recognition which they deserve.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I beg to second the Motion. My hon. Friend who has just addressed the House has covered the ground so adequately that I need not occupy more than a minute or two in support of the Motion Let me make it perfectly plain that we on these benches draw no artificial distinction between what are called professional and manual workers. We recognise that we have here a body of people who, in their own way, are making contributions to the country's progress and the country's good, and there could he nothing more deplorable than that there should he any idea that we were pleading specially for one class or the other in the Motion which is now before the House. During the War, there was a very considerable extension in the organisation of all classes of clerical and professional workers, hut the Motion which we submit to-night concerns more closely the employés of local authorities,
banks and similar institutions, shipping and large insurance concerns, and one or two other undertakings. During recent years there has been, as I have indicated, a. considerable addition to the membership of associations which cater particularly for these classes of professional workers, and the request which they are making at the present time is simply a request for the elementary recognition of the bodies and associations which they have formed.
My hon. Friend has quoted the case of the Scottish Bankers' Association, and I may be forgiven for citing that case, not because the principle it raises is confined to Scotland in any way, but because more sharply than any other controversy it illustrates what is at stake in this question. In 1920 the average remuneration, with bonus included, of the Scottish bank clerk of 10 years' standing, was about £160; the remuneration of a clerk of 15 years' standing was £216, or thereabouts, and that of a clerk of 20 years' standing, probably £250 or less. No one would seek to defend remuneration of that kind at a time when the cost of living was 141 per cent. above the retail level of July, 1914. The bank clerks organised. They became rapidly a very powerful body, and, in due course, they approached the Scottish banking institutions, five or six in number, very wealthy corporations, for better terms, and not only were they denied the recognition of their Association for the purposes of collective bargaining, but it was quite clearly indicated—and this appears to be more important—that it was the settled policy of the large banking institutions in Scotland to refuse, either now, or at any date in future, the recognition of anything resembling a trade union.
I respectfully suggest that an attitude of that kind is entirely out of date. We have the recognition of powerful bodies of professional workers, highly trained, highly skilled, of all kinds. It has sometimes been said, with very considerable justice, that one of the most powerful trade unions in this country is the British Medical Association I know, from the experience of local authorities, that that association can practically dictate its terms, and not only can it settle its terms by the power which it, possesses, but it can practically prevent the
application of any medical man for a post, unless a salary of a certain standard be offered by the local authority, or by any other party who may be involved. I do not complain. I am only saying at the moment that a body powerful like that, and skilled, has obtained recognition, very largely by public consent, and the very people who defend such recognition refuse a similar recognition to other classes of professional workers, who. perhaps, are just as highly skilled in their own callings or vocations. The Scottish banks fell back upon this expedient. They said, "We cannot recognise your trade union, but we will offer you, as a kind of alternative, an internal guild," and that internal guild became, not merely an alternative to the collective bargaining of a trade union or the representatives of such workers, hut it became an alternative to the application of Whitleyism—of which, in your presence. Sir, I speak with very great respect—in the banking profession.
There is, therefore, far more at stake in this controversy than mere recognition of an association of professional workers. We quite clearly recognise, of course, that we cannot seek to compel the Government to force recognition, nor do we believe for a moment that true recognition will come by what might be called compulsory means. I take the view that the hest course to recognition is a water-tight organisation, but, unfortunately, in these professional bodies, we are in many cases very far from having a water-tight organisation. By that I mean an organisation representative of 100 per cent. of the workers engaged. I entirely concede that if the workers will not themselves organise for the purpose of recognition, then a considerable measure of blame must rest upon their own shoulders, and until they so recognise their duty it will be difficult for those who are organized, and others, to speak on their behalf. Very large numbers of these people are now organised, and they have had experience in England and elsewhere of the working of the internal guild. If the internal guild is really in the nature of a works committee, or some kind of body within the bank or institution which can deal with internal conditions of employment and the rest of it, it probably is capable of doing quite useful work, but it is not a substitute for an effective trade
union, and, of course, it is not a substitute at all for a Whitley Council. The internal guild in the Union Bank of Scotland, which I quoted by way of illustration, has been quite useless in any effort to prevent the withdrawal of the whole of the war bonus. Very much the same experience has been true of other concerns.
The time has come that in our view we must make a very earnest appeal on behalf of the professional workers. We do so for two reasons which I will, in conclusion, summarise as briefly as possible. The first reason is that undoubtedly in our war-time experience probably no class of the community, with the exception of the old age pensioners, suffered more. Their bargaining power was weak, and it was only comparatively late in the War that many of their organisations had any effect at all. The increases in salary granted followed the cost of living at a very respectful distance. There was a decline in the purchasing power of large numbers of people in the banks and kindred institutions. It is only by recognition at the present day that they are going to safeguard themselves in the very difficult economic times through which we are now passing. As a plain matter of duty I think that recognition should he freely accorded.
The second reason is this: that more and more as we study the industrial and general economic progress of this country, more and more do we realise how much depends upon the administrative, supervisory, technical and clerical staffs. Unless we have technical competence and skill, and unless we safeguard them by a reasonable measure of economic security, the many social and industrial changes which we introduce will very largely fail in their application. I suggest in the national interest that it is our duty to afford recognition to such bodies, and support every effort to that end. We have tried to argue in the interests of definite collective bargaining, of Whitleyism itself, and the other purposes of improving conditions and safeguarding that skill upon which the welfare of the community depends. We ask the House to-night to support this Resolution, believing that if there is on the records of this Chamber a message of this kind we have achieved something more than a mere moral victory: we will have laid
down a principle which we trust at the earliest possible moment the banks, insurance companies, local authorities, shipping, and other undertakings will freely adopt.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: Hon. Members opposite, I think, rather under-estimate the action that the banks and large employers have taken. They ask for the recognition, as the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) said, of trade unionism. But hon. Members opposite do not entirely understand what it is that the union of clerks really requires. I do not want any misunderstanding as to the attitude of the banks in this country towards trade unions or collective bargaining. The banks have given every facility to their employés to put forward any grievances that they may have, and I consider, and I think every fair minded person will consider, that the banks, the large shipping companies, and the large commercial houses treat their employés with every consideration and do everything they possibly can to make their existence as happy and as comfortable as it is possible to make it.
The Proposer and Seconder of this Resolution do not understand the conditions or the ambitions of young men who enter these great institutions with a view to making a future for themselves. These large concerns take youths of the age of 19 and 19 and teach them their business, and these know that if they are good pupils, if they are assiduous in their work, they have positions before them. They go into the accountancy department, or the securities department, and they can work up to be sub-managers and managers of the different branches. It would be intolerable if the banks or any other large employér of labour, who has to create a vast organisation with raw material in the youths that come to him, should be dictated to by people outside who have no possible knowledge of the business, and who, I might say without fear of contradiction, in the majority of cases are unwelcome to the employés themselves. In the large banks we have established a guild that was referred to by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh. This has the power to go before the managers and the directors and to place before them the grievances of the employés, and any statements or representations made are
always considered, and considered sympathetically.
It would be quite impossible for any largo establishment to lay down a scale of wages applicable to every individual in the bank or in any large shipping firm or in any large mercantile firm. What the banks and all large firms must necessarily insist upon is that they must be the masters in their own house. They must absolutely be able to select the fittest men for any particular job, and they must be in a position when unfortunate incidents do occur, where a young man shows no ability or shirks work, or refuses to do work that is necessary to be done instantly, and he puts it off to another day, the promotion of those men must entirely rest with those who are responsible to the public and to the shareholders of the institution for the conduct of the business of that institution. I do not think that the House of Commons will for one moment try to force that system upon the commercial community. The object of this Resolution goes far beyond banks or insurance companies or shipping companies, for it goes to the very bottom of the commercial system of this country. The guild of which I have spoken is, so far as the employers are concerned, voluntarily elected by the majority of the employés of these institutions. I submit that it is not the same as a trade union, because it is entirely a voluntary institution elected by the employés themselves and it is only concerned with the conditions under which they worked. It is entirely in the interests of the employés themselves, and it is not dominated or controlled by political politicians outside the institutions concerned in this guild. I do not think the House of Commons will take the responsibility of insisting upon the recognition of an outside body to enable or empower them in any way to interfere with the activities of the employés in any of these institutions. I do not think the House of Commons would in any way authorise outside interference with people who do not want it.
So far as salaries are concerned the two hon. Members who have spoken have referred to salaries north of the Tweed I am not very well acquainted with salaries north of the Tweed, but I know that we have a great many young men who come south of the Tweed, because
they cannot manage to get along under the conditions prevailing on the other side of the border. They quote these salaries, but they do not say what future provision is made for the people unemployed in these various banks. In an institution of which I happen to be a director we have a pension fund and a provident fund, and we have every kind of pension for the different classes of employés, and all these things have to be taken into consideration as well as the actual salary earned. Under these conditions the mere quoting of a figure for the salary of various types of employés cannot be considered as the maximum rate paid to those employés.
Another reason why it would be impossible for the management of any large commercial institution to recognise an outside authority is that we are constantly in the industries of this country a curtailment of the hours of work, and you have had any amount of agitation to do away with overtime. A commercial undertaking, unlike an industrial undertaking, cannot be bound in that way. You have mail days where you have correspondence from all parts of the world. You have in a shipping office at certain times a steamer arriving or sailing, and it is necessary for the people in that department to work an hour or two hours overtime on that night. Another day they have not much to do, and they can go to their employers and get a day or two days off if they like.
The prosperity of the individual has never been achieved by shirking work when there is work to be done. Those men who are prepared to put in a little extra time are the men who get promotion, and who are selected and gain the confidence of their employers and, as a rule, in a commercial house they do not get any payment for overtime where a man happens, through necessity, to have to stick to his work for an hour or two extra on one particular day, because he knows it is made up to him on another occasion when he can get off. Those men who are not prepared to do a proper day's work or to do a little extra for somebody else are certainly the men who are not selected for promotion in a bank, a shipping firm or any commercial house. You cannot compare the conditions in an office with the conditions obtaining in a large factory. The man who wants to succeed
in an office is the man "ho is prepared, even at some inconvenience to himself, to do everything he can to further the interests of the business in which he is occupied, no matter what the connection may be. Under these circumstances, I feel confident that the House of Commons will not pass a Resolution of this kind, which would mean the introduction into commerce of conditions which would be intolerable, and which would be exceedingly difficult to carry out. Therefore I hope that the House will reject this Resolution.

Mr. CLYNES: My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. S. Samuel) has, with great force and candour, stated what might be termed the employers' point of view on this question, and I am certain that he will not object to one of his constituents offering some reply to him in an endeavour further to reinforce what has been said from this side of the House. I think that this is the first occasion for a very long time on which Members of the Labour party have called upon anyone, either in this House or out of it, to follow the example of the Government, for so our Motion is worded; but, of course, it is not particularly this Government, for the example of which the Motion speaks is one which was set very many years ago, and to which every succeeding Government has adhered. It is the example of requiring two organised bodies, the employers and the employés, to enter into businesslike relations with each other, and stand upon the same footing of right for purposes of negotiation and discussion, instead of either claiming the right to deny to the other freedom of action in respect of the choice of an organisation or the election of representatives I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Putney that the men who are covered by this Motion have been very eager for some such discussion as this in the House, and are anxious that Parliament should express an opinion, in order that that opinion should influence the bodies of employers and other institutions mentioned in the Motion.
By that I mean that there is a real necessity for the steps we are asking the House to take. These men have not been organised for long. Their organisation may be imperfect. They have had unusual difficulties to face and overcome. Great influences have been at work to prevent their full entry into the enjoy-
ment of the rights of organisation in a way chosen by themselves. They, to a great extent, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend opposite, are not unemployed in large masses in great factories or workshops; they are engaged, in large part, in small groups, in some instances in only twos, threes, dozens, or twenties. They, therefore, lack that encouragement which frequently comes from the fact that men are massed together in very large numbers. Their difficulties have, therefore, been great, hut their grievances have been real. They did not, indeed, move at all very much in the direction of organised effort until the pressure of high prices made their position intolerable. Like every other class, when the cost of living was ascending they felt the burden of that change, and being, as they were, the last class to secure any advance in wages or any War bonus, they suffered for a considerable time without their employers generally voluntarily coming. forward and giving them relief in any nay similar to the relief secured in the higher wages obtained by the manual population. They did not seek organisation until necessity forced it upon them, and it may be that, if employers employing all these varied groups and classes of clerical and professional workers had voluntarily given to them means for meeting the increased cost of living —

Mr. S. SAMUEL: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The banks more than doubled their clerks' wages during the War.

Mr. CLYNES: I am well aware that there were outstanding instances of the more just and generous and enlightened employers setting an example and doing what was reasonable fairly early, but I know I am correct in stating that, generally, bonuses or advances were not given to these men until after they had organised and put themselves in the position of being able to formulate their demands and to press them. I can assert, in relation to these men, that this class of employé has been placed under the necessity of using the same arts of organisation, of representation and associated effort that almost every other section in the community has enjoyed for a long time, and I think my hon. Friend opposite will see that there is reason in my argument when I say that the right of associated effort, exercised and enjoyed fully
by, say, a combination of banks, is a right which that combination of banks cannot fairly or reasonably deny to the men who may be unemployed within it. These are not rights to be conceded or withheld by any one of us to another according to what we might think is good for them.
Right from the beginning of any discussion on the question of organisation, our old friend the argument of a certain thing being impossible has ever been with us. There are those who feel that organisation will do for our neighbours but not for them; that it is quite suitable for someone else but not for them. We have really gone beyond that stage, and there is not now living I suppose, a class of professional workers, not to say manual workers, in which the persons unemployed have not for a long time recognised the necessity and general wisdom of organising themselves and acting through representatives. I gather, however, that my hon. Friend opposite regards those representatives as third parties. I think they are not. A trade union or a guild, or an association secretary or chairman acting for the men behind him, is no more a third party than is, say, the secretary or the chairman of a board of directors acting for shareholders behind him. The men in any occupation, and not least the men in the higher trades and professions, are required individually to exhibit, in the nature of their work, a high level of competence. They are known to be, and in the nature of things must be, men of exceptionally good character, of standards of honesty, conduct and behaviour of the very highest in comparison with their fellows; and the fact that they must possess unusually high attributes, as compared with their fellows, entitles them to handsome and voluntary recognition by those who might employ them, instead of their being regarded as interfering busybodies and third parties who can have no place in the board room of the employer I deny that it is right on the part of any employer to deny to men who are unemployed in any occupation freedom to associate together and act through properly established organisations.
Why do we ask that this House, in these circumstances, should express this opinion? It is that this activity of organisation should be used and enjoyed as a right, and not as a favour. Men must not come to regard it as a con-
cession; as something which is kindly permitted, and which may, at any moment, be withheld or denied by the employer. I observe that my hon. Friend opposite spoke of what we know to be common in the case of very many employers. He spoke of the kindly treatment of employers, and of the very human and helpful action many employers do take, especially in particular or individual cases. That, again, is not the point. To treat men with consideration, as has been said, or in any charitable sense, or in the sense of any favour in order to help them, is to do something which, after all, is a long way from the concession of that right which trade unions were established to assert, many years ago. I doubt whether, if there were absolute recognition of all these different bodies, covering clerical and professional workers, that that recognition would ever, in any instance, be the cause of straining relationships between employers and unemployed. On the contrary, I think it would tend to increase the standard of friendly feeling between employers and unemployed in these instances.
Clearly, there must now be a number of cases where either public bodies, shipping companies, or insurance bodies, and so on—indeed, it is known that insurance bodies have frequently been offenders in this matter, and that there have been strikes and stoppages of great groups of men merely on that question of their right to be recognised and to have their properly-accredited delegates, chosen for them, acting for them, on wages and conditions. I was in a Scottish town, only a day or two ago, where it was reported to me, as a matter of fact—and I have very good reason to believe it—that a considerable employer there requires his employés to sign a document to the effect that they will not join a trade union, and that they are not members of a trade union. That is a condition of servitude which this House should in no way sanction. On the contrary, this House, being the repository of national freedom, it is the place to which, rightly, we can come to ask that a Motion such as this should be passed in order that the moral weight of this nation should exert an influence for good on the various employers who may be affected.

Mr. FAIRBAIRN: I have risen to offer a, few observations on this Motion,
because it would be a great pity if the House were to regard it as of purely a Labour or trade union character. This is a Motion which is so reasonable, and which has been supported so reasonably by all the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on this side, that I anticipate support from hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. S. Samuel) seemed to point out the beneficial conditions prevailing in the banking world, of which I have no knowledge. He may be right, but I regard it as singular that over 30,000 bank officials should think it desirable to join a guild in order to act together in matters affecting their work and conditions. That goes to show that there is some need for this combination, My experience, through a great many years, as an employer of labour and a member of public bodies, has taught me that the employer and the public body never suffer when they communicate and negotiate with representatives of their employés rather than communicate with or talk separately to those employés. That is a matter of fact and experience. It is, I am sure, the Experience of all hon. Members who have knowledge of these matters.
I feel that when bodies like the Bank Officers' Guild, the Guild of Insurance Officials, and that very important body, the National Association of Local Government Officers, appeal to the House to vote for a Motion of this character, it is only right and proper that we, as representatives of the nation, should express the opinion that employers outside should follow the example of the Government in recognising organisations such as these. I know many of their members, and I had a letter from one of my constituents who is an official of one of those guilds. I am quite sure he is not a supporter of the Labour party; I am quite sure he is not an agitator. In fact, I believe be is, or probably was, a supporter of the Noble Lord who used to represent the constituency for which I now sit. I say that because I do not think the claims of these associations should be regarded as purely trade union claims, although that may be suggested. It would be to the advantage of those with whom these officers have to deal that they should be granted this privilege. Of course, we are not granting
a privilege; we are merely expressing the opinion of the assembled representatives of the nation that this is desirable, having regard to our experience, if only in the recent discussions with regard to civil servants.
Everyone will agree with me that the unfortunate defeat of the Government recently, was entirely due to hon. Members assembling in a room upstairs, and hearing the facts, with regard to the position of civil servants, from the mouths of their duly accredited representatives. I am certain I should not have voted in the Division against the Government as I did if I had not gone to that meeting and heard those views so capably, and apparently so truthfully expressed. As public men, it is our duty to support a moderate Motion of this kind, even if it does emanate from the Labour party. If we wish to take away from the Labour party any political or party credit, the best thing we can do, in all parts of the House, is to vote for the Motion, so that They will not be able to claim for themselves any particular credit.

Sir PERCY NEWSON: As one who has been a director of banks and insurance companies, both here and abroad, for many years past, I desire to associate myself entirely with the remarks of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. S. Samuel). T shall oppose this Motion, and for this reason, that I am quite satisfied, from my own experience, that the position is not such as it is represented to be. For many years I was on the board of a bank in India, where we recruited our European assistants from this country. I have no hesitation in saying that the conditions under which those men worked were vastly superior to those in any other branch of life. Those men were brought out to India on very high rates of pay. They were provided with very liberal leave—sick leave and furlough. They had a pension fund and provident fund, to which the banks contributed very materially. The result was that after a man had put in about 20 years' work he was enabled to go home and retire on quite a good competence.
So much as regards the banks. Since I have come home, I have been put on the board of a bank here, and also on the board of a very large insurance company. It was only the other day that the boards of both concerns were engaged in going
through their pay lists. The conclusion to which I came was that the men were treated as handsomely as possible, and I am quite sure that in no other sphere of life were they treated with greater consideration. I believe that is the case in most of the insurance companies of this country. There are provident and pension funds; there are openings in these banks and insurance companies which give men plenty of hope and promise, provided they are men of the right kind. I think the hon. Member for Putney put the matter very concisely from our point of view—the point of view of the employers of these men. We cannot recognise any of these outside unions.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: You will have to do it, some day or other.

Sir P. NEWSON: We cannot do it through the circumstances of business. We have heard the arguments on one side, from the point of view of the employé. We do not hear them stated so freely from the point of view of the employer. What is going to be the position if you have a strike? Is the whole business of the country to be upset? The position is going to be altogether different from the position of a man who runs a factory or a mill. I have been not only a banker and insurance man, but a business man in a fairly large way for many years past, and I have had to do with strikes at mills employing 20,000 men. That is a different matter altogether. If you are going to have a strike or anything of that sort in a bank or in a series of banks in any one place it is a different proposition altogether. I hope this Motion will be carried to a Division. I shall certainly vote against it, and I hope the rest of the Members on this side will follow me in the Lobby.

Mr. JOHN MURRAY: I rather regret that the hon. Member who has just sat down has contrived to give to the controversy, which was going on so amicably and so promisingly, a rather sharper turn than was given to it by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. S. Samuel). Perhaps the hon. Member, when he forgets India more and becomes more used to the conditions in this country, will realise that the system to which you, Sir, have given your name, during his long absence in India has made more progress, not only with manual workers, but with every
manner of worker, than is perhaps known in India. I think the time has gone by when any body of employers can refuse to accord the benefits of Whitleyism to those with whom they work. I should like to take the opposite line to that of the hon. Member who has just sat down, not to emphasise or to sharpen the difference between parties, but rather to suggest that the Debate has already shown how very narrow the issue before the House, the issue between bankers and their employés, really is. It is really a question of one phase of Whitleyism against another, between what I may call the internal phase and the external phase, and by internal I mean that body of arrangements and practices, that constitution in a business establishment, whereby, inside the limits of that establishment, the employer or employers and the workpeople are brought closely together in spirit and in working and are enabled to pursue their common aims better, more efficiently and more prosperously. By the external phase I mean the recognition of organisations which contain more employers and workmen than exist in any one undertaking. The second phase is more widespread and the first is more intimate. Both are equally phases of co-operation, both equally need the support of some constitution building, both are necessary to the prosperity and the advance of industry, both are as necessary to the masters as to the men, and neither is sufficient by itself. There are industries in which the external phase is more important, and will remain more important, and there are industries and callings in which the internal phase is and will remain more important, and in my opinion the development of the internal phase so as to insure within each individual undertaking good feeling and good understanding between the employers and their men is a most vital phase. But when I say that I say to those who applaud me that an equally necessary phase is the external phase, whereby bodies of employers recognise, for purpose of diplomacy, bodies of working men, and no employer can get off with it if he says, "I have supplied the internal phase. I have given you pensions and all kinds of pecuniary benefits and I am not going to give you the external phase." Both have got to come.
This Motion, which I welcome and which I shall support if it is pushed to a Division, seems to me to be a most remarkable sign of the times. I ask the House to think back a few years to the movement which we know as Whitleyism. That movement is based on the recognition that the modern system of organised working of industry is really a co-operative system. It is based on the recognition that the capitalist system is a co-operative system. Whitleyism is an attempt to cure the faults of our system by getting back to the foundation view of co-operation. Voluntary Whitleyism has made great progress. It has done a great deal of work in many departments of British industry. It has done, I believe, almost as much as can be effected on a voluntary basin by the free action of the individuals who are concerned with it. I should not like to say there is a reaction against Whitleyism of a deadly or serious kind, but I say there is a real reaction against Whitleyism, both among the employers and the workpeople. The one are alienated and the others are disillusioned or disappointed. It is possible that the first free momentum of that great movement, which has brought blessings with it to this country and to other countries, is spent. It has done a great work. It has brought clearly before the mind of the country certain industrial relationships conceived in a co-operative and friendly spirit, along with a number of rights and duties which are derived therefrom for all the parties in industry. It has held up before the mind of the nation that great lesson, and not in an incomplete, form either. The Whitley rights, relationships, duties, burdens and privileges have taken on a stabilised and normalised aspect, so that we now know what we mean by recognition of trade unions, by works councils, by all those methods of negotiation and diplomacy and courtesy which have come to bulk so largely in the industrial life of the country. Those things are familiar. They are almost general. They are admirable. They are productive. They conduce to all the aims of industry and to the comforts and wellbeing of all the persons therein concerned. The thing has taken shape. It has become a picture in the minds of the nation. I ask myself often, and I wish to ask this House, whether the time may not be approaching
when those relationships, those rights and duties, those burdens and privileges that Whitleyism imposes upon both sides ought to be given the force of law. In that sense I welcome this Motion, which is an application to this House to take a hand in this matter, to say that Whitleyism is really good and really necessary and that its benefits ought to be extended to fields of industry where they have not yet been extended, and I regard that as the first step perhaps in the campaign for the legal sanction and recognition of the rights and duties and relationships which make up Whitleyism.
There is a third point that I wish to address to hon. Members alcove the Gangway. I do not know whether to call them the Socialist party or the Labour party. I think I shall call them the Socialist party. The capitalist system which has brought us all here is at the bottom a co-operative system, and its many faults and failings consist in offending against the co-operative principle which is at the bottom of it. I am not here to minimise the faults of that system, or to pretend that there is goodness in the faults. Whitleyism seeks in various phases and on various planes in industry to realise more fully with any amount of elaboration and detail the co-operative principle. There is nothing so contrary to Socialism as Whitleyism. There is nothing so calculated to build up and regenerate the industry of this country in its moral foundations as Whitleyism, and I am delighted to-night to see from the Socialist and Labour Benches this Motion being brought forward. It is a capitalist Motion founded on the co-operative principle that is at the basis of capitalism, and says to this House, to this nation, and to all who are engaged in its industry, "Get busy, in order to cure the faults, by bringing that co-operative principle more and more into the forefront."

Major Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: I do not at all agree with the two speeches made from this side of the House. I am, comparatively speaking, a small employer of labour, but a man who has tried to study this question as far as in me lies; and I am in favour of the Motion. I would point out to the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. J. Murray) that he is really living in the clouds. He dreams
about what he calls Whitleyism as if it were one of those wonderful ideals we have all to fight for, and which is much more important than the successful conduct of business. All of us, whether we are employers or what are called in this Motion, the professional workers, or working men, we have all to work together for the success of business. Supposing there are six different firms in the same line of business, all competing with one another, and the whole of the staff are in one organisation, in what I hardly like to call a trade union—

Mr. W. ADAMSON: Call it a trade union.

Sir G. HAMILTON: My right hon. Friend asks me to call it a trade union, and I will do so out of my respect for him, although a trade union is not a suitable name. I would rather call it a combination of professional workers. These clerks, cashiers, draughtsmen, confidential advisers who help the employer to deal with all the confidential details of his business, are combined in one large trade union, and then there happens to he a dispute between say, my right hon. Friend and his employés. I have no dispute with my employés, but my right hon Friend's employés and my employés are combined in the same union. In any business, in any "competitive" business, for competition is the life of business, it is very difficult for the employer to carry on successfully if he has any feeling that his confidential clerks are meeting other confidential clerks unemployed in other businesses and they are all combining against their employers, against those who are finding the capital and most of the brains to run the business.
The hon. Member for West Leeds talked about the Internal phase." That is one of those idealistic expressions which has never descended so low as my humble self in business; but "internal phase" is a very good expression. Is it not the internal phase of business which not only makes the business a success, but which also makes for happiness and complete co-operation between all classes in that business? I have always looked upon my engineers, managers, secretary, cashiers, chief clerks and draughtsmen as more or less part of myself in running the business. I
always have thought it would be useless for me to endeavour to carry on the business unless I had the full confidence, the full trust and the whole-hearted cooperation of every man in my office, and in my works. Occasionally, men in the works quarrel with their employer, not because they want to, but because they belong to a trade union which has a dispute somewhere else, and they are dragged out. They come to me and they say: "We do not want to go on strike, sir. We are perfectly happy. We are perfectly satisfied, and we are entirely with you in trying to promote and extend this business. We hate the idea of leaving your employment, and we hope that when this trouble is over there will be no ill-feeling, and that you will take us back." That is what good trade unionists say to me, and that is what they say to all good employers.
I believe in this Resolution because there are bad employers as well as good employers. Where there are bad employers who sweat their clerical labour, in whatever professional capacity that should be prevented. I was under the impression that the term "professional man" meant a solicitor, barrister, clergyman or a school teacher. I suppose the term "professional worker" includes clerks, cashiers, draughtsmen and everybody who does a hard day's work with pen or pencil, or as a manager, and so on, so long as he is not working with his hands. I have always believed in liberty, and if this Resolution means that you are going to combine the so-called professional workers so that you will have them in one big trade union and if there is a strike or dispute you are going to stop them from earning their salary whether they want to work, or not, I am against it. Otherwise, I am in favour of the Resolution. First, and always, there must be liberty. There is but little liberty allowed by trade unions to-day. I am against the trade unions saying to a man, "You shall not work." That is all wrong; it may be good organisation, but it is doing away with the liberty of the subject in this country, and this House has always stood for liberty. All employers should recognise combinations in employment, and speaking for the employers I say that we are willing to recognise and we are anxious to have what my hon. Friend opposite calls Whitleyism,
but. we are much more anxious to have real true co-operation so that from employer down to office boy we may all feel that we are working together for our joint good, for our combined good, for the good of our trade, and in doing so we are working for the good of our country.

Mr. McENTEE: I do not want to be taken away from the Resolution by the speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken, except to say that I am exceedingly pleased to know that he is going to vote for the Resolution. I do not stop to inquire why he is going to support the Resolution, nor am I prepared to enter into discussion with the hon. Member for Went Leeds in regard to the principle of Whitleyism. His speech ought to have been set to music, because of the very fine language in which it was framed. I ask the House to consider the arguments that were used by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. S. Samuel) and the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir P. Newson), who spoke of the experience he had in India. The hon. Member for Putney and the hon. Member below the Gangway said, "Suppose you have a strike." I put, it to the House. Suppose you have a strike in a bank, or one of the insurance companies, or any of the big business organisations of the country—it would be a very bad thing for that business, particularly if it happened to be a banking concern. But these men and women, who are described as professional workers, are already organised. We heard to-night that there are 400,000 already organised. They undoubtedly desire to organise, and believe that they have grievances.
The question has been raised in some quarters as to whether these grievances are legitimate or not, but at any rate these people believe they have grievances Is the terrible position that has been put as to a possible strike more likely to occur if you do not grant this freedom of organisation, or if you say to them. "It does not matter what grievances you may think you have, or what the power or number of your organisation is, we, a few employers, engaged in banking, insurance and other industries are the people who are going to determine your life for you, and are going to say to you that you shall not have this organisation because we prohibit you from having it "? All the history of organisation in this country
proves that if you are prepared to take up an attitude like that you are just doing the thing that is liable to lead to a strike more than anything else which you can do. There is no business in this country to-day of any importance in which there is not an organisation of employers. You claim for yourselves the right to organise. You would think it impertinent if a body of workers were to say, "You have no right to organise," and if they had the power to prevent you organising, you would consider it wrong if they used that power for that purpose.
10.0 P.M
After all, who are you gentlemen that you set yourselves on a pedestal, and say to a larger body of men than yourselves, who must be considered to be at least equally intelligent as some of you, men whose experience probably is as good as yours, who have the same capacity for consuming the necessities of life, and the same desires probably to enjoy some of those things that are considered to be good in life, "You shall not do these things and you shall not form an organisation to protect your own interests "? You have no moral right to say such a thing to those people. I suggest that you might read the very excellent book written by my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb), "The History of Trade Unionism." You will find that exactly the same arguments, which have been used, particularly by the hon. Member for Putney, were used in the past in regard to any body of workers, which from time to time tried to build up an organisation to protect its own interests. I can remember myself in my own time in the trade union movement being told by bodies of employers that it was impossible to allow us to organise and dictate to them how to carry on their business, and we told them then, as one of the speakers told you to-night, that we had never any desire to tell them how to carry on their business, but that we had a desire, as these professional workers have the desire now, to carry on our own business in our own interests and as we think best.
The whole history of organisation in this country proves one or two things. It proves that friendly negotiations between employers and unemployed, whether they be professional or otherwise, between accredited representatives of employers and of bodies of workmen, is always the
system that will lead to the peaceful and best results, assuming that we remain under the capitalist system. Frankly, I am out for the abolition of this system, because I see the failure of it, and its ill results towards the great body of people. But I am not going to say that, because I believe in the abolition of that system, therefore I am going to do nothing within that system which will distribute the amenities of life better than they are distributed to-day. Everybody who has any broad sympathy or knowledge of bodies of workers and employers will agree that both will do very much better for themselves if they appoint their own accredited representatives.
I was rather sorry to hear the hon. Member for Putney speak of the accredited representatives of organisations as outside agitators who come in and make strikes. I have had 30 years' experience in the trade union movement, and with all that experience I have never seen an instance in which a trade union has appointed some agitator simply to make trouble, and I cannot conceive of any intelligent body of men doing such a thing or permitting such a thing to be done. These professional workers are scattered all over the country. They include all kinds of workers, technical and clerical and managers of all kinds, and nobody questions that they have a desire to organise. It would be going very far back indeed if at this time, when we hear so much talk about freedom and when we talk about the lack of freedom in other countries, this House were to determine to-night that these bodies of intelligent, organised, educated people should not be permitted openly to organise.
They are going to organise, and I would suggest to hon. Members that they might consider the history of organisation in the trade union movement. When the manual workers were refused this right of organisation that the professional workers are now asking it did not break up organisation, it did not prevent organisation, but it compelled them to organise in a secret fashion. It left in their minds a sense of injustice which reflected itself in their work and affected their associations with their employers. The employers saw that this secret organisation was injuring their business and introduced a Measure in thi[...] [...]ouse giving industrial
workers the right to organise. I suggest it would be exceedingly bad if when the professional workers have reached the stage they have to-day when they desired to organise if we were to have history repeating itself and have them driven to organising secretly. It is because some of us take this broadminded view and because we believe in the right of every man and woman to liberty, because we pride ourselves in the liberty given to all our citizens, that. I say I believe this Measure will result in harmony and not in discord. We are not compelling anybody to do anything, and I think it would be a bad thing if it went outside that the majority of this House could be induced to vote against this proposal and show the people outside that instead of desiring to preserve the liberty of the subject this House is encouraging a small section of the community to prevent good citizens from exercising their liberty.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): The course which this Debate has taken this evening makes it unnecessary for me to intervene. I rise merely for the purpose of saying that if there is a division it will be left to the free vote of the House.

Mr. REMER: I did not intend to intervene in this Debate and I would not have done so except for the speeches which have come from the Labour Benches. Hon. Members on the Labour benches pointed to Members on these benches and said, "You are doing this and not doing that, you are responsible for this and you are preventing that." The hon. Member who has just spoken seems to take the view that the Members on this side of the House are representative of those bad employers who are trying to grind down their workers. I resent his attitude in addressing those remarks to this side of the House, as if we were responsible for those conditions, which we regret as much as he does. I would ask him and others whether he has considered the position so far as the banks are concerned. I understand no bank has declined to receive properly organised bodies of its workers. I understand the workers have organised themselves into guilds and that their properly accredited representatives are being received by managers and directors of the banks and
their cases fully considered, but what the banks are resenting and where they are taking up opposition is where outside organisations try to come in and over-ride the efforts which are made by these properly-accredited organisations. Then the managers and directors refuse to meet them. Having said that, I want to say quite frankly that, so far as I am concerned, I find myself in complete agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir G. Hamilton) and to say quite frankly it is my intention to vote for this Resolution. But having said that, I am at a complete loss to understand what was the necessity for this Resolution being placed on the Order Paper. The trade unions did not get their right of recognition in the industrial world by putting Resolutions on the Order Paper of the House of Commons. If it is a question merely of recognition, I take it everyone in this House is in favour of it in principle. The Government, even if this Resolution is passed, cannot compel these great organisations to carry out this Resolution any more than the House itself can carry out the Resolution if it is passed this evening. It is merely a pious Resolution of the most peurile nature which means absolutely nothing. It is a puerile attempt on the part of the Socialist party to try to get a little electoral credit on their part and to secure some black-coated votes. This Resolution is of a type which I think the Rules of the House ought to prevent being put on the Order Paper as being of no assistance whatever to the Government of this country but which does considerable injury to the prestige of this House.

Dr. CHAPPLE: The hon. Member who has just addressed the House says that the Labour party is trying to get some electoral credit by bringing this Motion forward. That implies that there is a large electorate who are anxious for it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not a bit! "] If that is not so then where does the electoral credit come in? The hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham (Sir G. Hamilton), who is always in favour of liberty, said in his dramatic and eloquent way that he is in favour of liberty always, and I assume he is in favour of liberty to those professional workers to combine. That is a direct expression of liberty to
those people who wish to combine, for what purpose? The hon. Member says, "To combine against the employers." Nothing of the kind. These men wish to combine in their own defence. Their object is to discuss the conditions of their labour. What is wrong about that? To discuss their terms of employment. What is wrong about that? There is surely nothing to object to in a body of employés meeting in an organisation to compare notes, to compare conditions, to compare their wages and see how far they are receiving justice at the hands of those who employ them. It is not only necessary that the parties should have intercommunication and discuss terms and conditions of labour, but it is also necessary for them to have an equivalent power in negotiation with employers. Employers in the past have always had the advantage, and their abuse of their position has driven men to combine. We never would have had trade unionism at all if it had not been that employés were always at a disadvantage. Working individually and negotiating with employers as individual units they could always be suppressed and always were. It was not until the refusal of the employing classes to grant the very liberty which the hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham so strongly upholds, that we had combination for self-defence.
The corollary of combination is negotiation. It is the easiest way for employers to negotiate with one or two representatives of all their employés, and wherever you get combination negotiation naturally follows. The sequel of that is arbitration; I am in favour of arbitration in all industrial disputes, and I am in favour of the retention of the weapon of the strike in the hands of all industrial combinations. Someone has said that no strike has ever been successful, that the strike has always reacted upon the strikers, who have invariably suffered. I do not believe that statement. It is not so much what the strike accomplishes as what the fear of a strike accomplishes. Whenever employés are combined, and as a result have in their hands a weapon which can compel consideration of their conditions by the employers, the threat very often is sufficient to avert a strike and to secure the improved conditions desired. There are the Councils honourably associated with the name of Mr. Speaker. They have not made the head-
way which they deserve, and I am afraid that the Government, especially the late Government, has not always been in sympathy with the Whitley Councils. The time has arrived when the Government should advise all local authorities to set up Whitley Councils and to use them, with the necessary result of negotiation and arbitration.

Captain FOXCROFT: As a Conservative who intends to vote for this Motion I would say two things. Those representatives of the bank clerks whom I have interviewed are most reasonable in their claims, and I am certain that they will be most reasonable in their policy. I feel sure, therefore, that a large number of Conservative Members will support the Motion. None the less, I think that more Conservatives would vote for the Motion had the great trade unions during the past four years used their enormous power with more moderation. In spite of that fact, and because the bank clerks' case is a just case, I shall vote for the Motion.

Mr. HARDIE: While very many kind things have been said to-night, I was struck most by the remark of an hon. Member who said that he had been in India. He reminded me of the play- in which the Rajah of Bong comes into a scene. It is all very well to talk about what may be given by good employers. There is one thing that is always forgotten, and that is the right of the employés to have political opinions and to take part in political work. Let me give a case. We have an insurance company with its head office in Perth, and you had there an arrogant bully for manager with the name of Mr. Norrie Miller, and you had the right of these individuals absolutely denied. The employers said they wanted to he masters in their own house. We agree to that. Let the employers be masters in their own house, but they want to be the bosses of the employés' house as well. The employer is not going to leave to the employé any sense of freedom whatever. When the Guild of Insurance Officials tried by every means, on the occasion of the strike in Perth, to come to reasonable terms the manager refused even to discuss matters. He was going to be boss and he was going to say what the standard of life of the
employés was to be, as if he represented some great organisation. Only because of the isolation of that class of professional workers was he able to do it. I come to the draughtsmen and technical chemists unemployed in public works. They are also professional workers, but because they are isolated and not gathered together in large numbers they work at a disadvantage. Take also the case of the shipping clerks during the dock strike in Glasgow. Why do not the employers freely admit that there are employers who make use of the sense of fear? During that dock strike the sense of fear compelled poor, miserable clerks to go on to the docks and to try to dump big bales and boxes, getting into all kinds of trouble and causing themselves blistered hands and sore backs as a result. Why need they stoop to do these things if the employers have the sense of justice which they claim to have? Good employers ought to give whole-hearted support to organisations of professional workers so as to bring the bad employers into line, and I hope that the House will accept this Resolution as one step in that direction.

Mr. C. W. CROOK: As the voice of the employers and the voice of the unemployed have been heard, perhaps one who is himself a professional worker may have a word on this matter. I did belong to the union which is not a trade union, but which in fact carries on its business almost in the way of a trade union. We were forced to that position by the very fact that all employers are not good. As a matter of fact, the whole system of trade unionism has been forced into existence and built up by the fact that there are many bad employers who treat their servants so wrongly that combination for defence is absolutely necessary. Bad employers make strong unions. I have fortunately had some acquaintance with the particular question which we are discussing. I was asked some three or four years ago, when the employés of the insurance companies were first beginning to talk about combination, to address them on the methods which we had adopted for combination. I found that had it not been for one or two very bad insurance companies there would be no talk of a combination of insurance workers to protect themselves. The whole of this discussion seems to have turned upon
banks. The banks represent a very small part of this question. Employés in banks are not one-tenth of the professional workers, and I am sure the best employers must agree, even with their knowledge of their own banks, that the combined knowledge of all other banks, both of directors and of employés, is better than the inside knowledge which they possess only of their own banks. The system in banks seems to be that they will kill any combination of bank employés by separating them. They are really following the old Cæsarian motto of dividing and conquering. Even the hest banker does not always treat his employés in the best way. The directors may be perfect in their ideals, and no doubt they are. We have heard two perfect bank directors on this side to-night, but even with perfect bank directors the organisation of the bank has to filter down from those perfect bank directors, through sometimes imperfect managers, down to the clerks, and there is no banker, however perfect., who has a right to say that his employés have no grievances. Therefore, I am supporting this Resolution, because I am a professional worker, and because I think it is time that, while the employés in the trade unions have the protection of combination, while the higher professional classes, like the doctors, the clergy, and the lawyers, have a more perfect protection still, those who are between the upper and nether millstones of these trade unions had protection for themselves.

Mr. SHINWELL: Hon. Members opposite have opposed this Resolution, not for lack of sympathy with trade union organisation, but because they desire to dictate the form of organisation, for professional workers, that is, to restrain, by bonds which one day or other will be broken asunder, the activities of professional and other employés. I concur in this Resolution as one which will confer a distinct advantage, not merely on professional workers, but on the industrial life of the nation, for hon. Members must be familiar with the long drawn out and protracted struggles in the industries of this nation during the past 50 or 60 years arising from the refusal of the employers to grant recognition to trade union organisations, and if there be a desire for industrial peace and harmony on the part
of hon. Members opposite and on the part of the nation itself, surely the most expeditious means of arriving at such harmony is to grant to professional workers that recognition which to some extent will avoid industrial discord.
The whole of this Debate has proceeded on the assumption that trade union organizations exist merely for protective purposes, that is to say, in order to extract from the employing classes more wages, shorter hours, better working conditions, and so on, but I want to introduce a wider aspect of this very important question, because I do not regard the function of a trade union organisation, whether it be one associated with manual workers or professional workers, as being merely that of protecting the interests of the workers. There is a justifiable demand, and an ever-growing demand and tendency to-day among the workers for more active participation in industrial administration. That is not intended merely in the interests of the employés, but in the interests of the nation itself, and when hon. Members opposite seek to deprecate the activities of trade union organisations they ought to consider the tendencies to which I have referred as important tendencies, which some day or other will have a remarkable effect on the industrial affairs of the nation itself. Unless these tendencies be permitted, if they have not free expression, they are bound to give rise to considerable industrial disturbance, and I would warn hon. Members opposite not to disregard these things, but to take the employés, no matter whether they he manual or professional, technical or administrative, into their full and complete confidence, not only with regard to mere working conditions, but with regard to all aspects of industrial undertakings and their ramifications.
Hon. Members opposite speak of trade union interference with the liberty of the subject. That comes very strangely from certain Members opposite who, not merely in theory, but in practice, have insisted on certain employés in their own industries abstaining from membership of a particular trade union organisation, while there are others, far example, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. S. Samuel), who is associated with the National Maritime Board, I believe, which stipulates that seamen must belong to one particular
organisation, and one alone. Why do they adopt such a policy? My submission is that, whenever a trade union organisation is prepared to accept the declared and expressed policy of the employers, then the organisation is recognised, but when it is recalcitrant, when it refuses to accept that policy, at all events, in some degree, then the employers are not at all prepared to grant it recognition. I do submit, that whether the tendency in the future be in the direction of Whitleyism, or an improved form of Whitleyism—for I would say to the House that the Whitley Councils, as we know them to-day, do riot give complete satisfaction to the workers of this country, or, for that matter, to the employing class—whether the tendency be in the direction of an improved form of Whitleyism, or perhaps an industrial parliament, or workers' council, or national or local guilds, or some similar form of organisation, there must be closer cooperation between the capitalist undertakings in the country and the large trade union organisations. They must come together, not merely to thresh out working conditions, wages, and so on, but to consider all aspects of industrial affairs, and until the employers of this country and the State itself recognise that the workers must be taken into complete confidence, there are bound to be industrial disturbances.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: This Debate somewhat interests me, as I happen to be a director of an insurance company, and, therefore, I do know something about this particular question. It is quite true there is a difference of opinion among insurance companies and among bankers as to whether these organisations should go on, or whether they should not. I have looked into the matter very carefully, and I have come to the conclusion that they should go on. I am in favour of them, and I think I am not the only one who is in favour of them. I hope that in course of time the other directors of insurance companies and bankers will come to the same opinion that I do, and give the same opportunity as is given to the ordinary manual worker. I do not see why one class of men should be placed in a different position from another class of men. If one class have an opportunity of combining—and it is useful that they
should combine, because, after all, combination has been going on for a long time, and I think I am right in saying that the power of combination was given by the party to which I belong—having given that power to the manual worker, I hope the party to which I belong will also give it to other workers, so that we shall all have the opportunity of combining collectively, if necessary, in order to make our own grievances or our own requirements known to those who are placed in a position above us. I only wanted to say that those are my views, and I shall certainly vote for the Motion.

Resolved,
 That, in view of the worsening conditions of middle-class professional workers. and of the advantages resulting from the recognition of the organisations of manual workers and the practice of collective bargaining, this House is of opinion that local authorities banks, insurance and shipping companies, and other employers of professional and clerical workers should follow the example of the Government in recognising the organisations of these workers.

Orders of the Day — CATHOLIC SCHOOLS.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to move:
 That the present system of imposing upon the Catholics of England the burden of building their own schools is contrary to religious and economic equality, and that the system of complete educational equality existing in Scotland should, with the necessary changes, be adopted in England.
There are only 25 minutes left for this important discussion, and I think I shall best consult the convenience of the House and the interests of the Motion by simply reading its terms, and leaving what has to be said to my hon. Friend the Member for the Seaham Division (Mr. Webb) who has very kindly offered to second it. My views are so well known that I need not say more.

Mr. WEBB: I beg to second the Motion. It would not be right now to be otherwise than extremely brief. I would just refer to two points in the Motion, the one with regard to the question of equality of Catholics in law, and the other in the matter of equality of treatment in administration. I think it would not. be quite so easy to adapt the Scottish system, in which practical equality has been obtained as between all denominations, for in this country, perhaps, matters are
a little more complicated than in Scotland. There are, however, certain practical equalities and practical grievances in the nature of inequalities of administration which I wish to bring to the notice of the House. At present the Catholic schools, even where they are promoted by Catholics, have to satisfy the Board of Education that the schools are not unnecessary. If so, the promoters have to provide what is necessary—[HON. "Speak up!"]before the school can be admitted to the grant list and be maintained under the Education Act of 1902.
During recent years the Board of Education has not only been requiring the Roman Catholics to erect their own schools as the law requires, but has been displaying actual reluctance, even when the population has increased and evidence as to the need for Catholic schools has been shown, to put those schools on the grant list. I have particulars which I have privately put before the representative of the Board of Education showing how the case stands. The need for accommodation for Catholic children has been shown, and the buildings are provided or are ready to be provided. There is the case of a school at Putney where, I am informed, it was actually decided by the Board of Education as being not unnecessary, and yet it has been refused admission to the grant list. I believe the explanation, to be quite candid, is that it would be more economical if all the children could be brigaded together into one school. In London there is an idea that the schools might very well hold 1,000 children. The Catholic schools, like most other denominational schools, however, are usually smaller, and the suggestion that you must force Catholic or Anglican children into other schools, because it is more economical to staff the larger schools, is merely defying the spirit of the Act of 1909. I do not think that the Board of Education would contend that that ought to be done. A number of small denominational schools have latterly been admitted by the Board and put on the grant list, but the Catholic schools in case after case have been refused. I second this Resolution on the ground of the equality of treatment to Catholics which is guaranteed to them under the Act of 1902, and I urge that equality should be
extended to them in the cases which I have submitted, and on which I should like to have the reply of the representative of the Board of Education.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): The hon. Member who has just sat down very courteously gave me notice of the various cases which he intended to raise. He has not raised them in detail on account of the late hour, and he has been content with mentioning only one particular case, and I will deal with that at once. In the first place, the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) rather misunderstood the position in regard to brigading the children together in a large school. The proposal was, that a new Roman Catholic school, for about 200 children, should be provided, of whom 71 were already attending public elementary schools in the neighbourhood; 49 were attending a private school, and 22 were attending a school one mile away. It was a proposal not for scattering Catholic children but to bring a large number of children, who are now being educated in other schools, into one fairly large school. The hon. Member for Seaham and the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor) allege that there is some special discrimination against Roman Catholics in this matter. I do not think that these two hon. Members really mean that they believe that the Board of Education or anybody concerned in educational administration are discriminating against Roman Catholics as compared with other denominations. I need only give the actual figures.
During the last 31 years, from the 1st January, 1920, to the 31st March, 1923, there have been 72 applications for recognition by Roman Catholic schools, and, of those 72, we have granted recognition to 55. That, surely, does not bear out any charge of discrimination. During the same period we have not granted recognition—I admit we have not received so many applications—to as many Church of England schools; and, as regards council schools applying for recognition, as regards local education authorities asking for recognition for the provision of new schools, we have in certain cases disapproved, while in many cases it has not come to the actual formal disapproval that is usually the case where a
denominational school is in question, because usually the proposals in the case of council schools are damped down before they come to the final stage. To take, however, one of the instances notified to me by the hon. Member for Seaham, that of the Tipton Roman Catholic school, that proposal was declared to be unnecessary by the Board at the very same time that the Board declared to be unnecessary a new central school which the local authority was then proposing to provide. These cases, I may say, are nearly all cases dating back one, two or three years, and that shows that there is, and can be, no discrimination under the Act, and no one believes for one moment that there is, against Roman Catholic schools. The 17 Roman Catholic schools that we have declared to be unnecessary have been declared to be unnecessary after careful inquiries. I have not been long enough in office to claim infallibility for myself or my Department, and these inquiries have to be decided upon a nice balance of considerations one against the other. They are very difficult matters to decide, but they have been fairly decided, and I think that the hon. Member for Seaham himself, or the hon. Member for the Scotland Division, would, in many of the cases at any rate, have decided in the same way themselves.
I really only rose because, as I have said, I had to answer the specific charges or questions put by the hon. Member for Seaham, but, before I sit down. I think I ought to say one word about the broad general proposition which is contained in this Motion, and which goes far beyond any criticism of the administration under the Act as it now is. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division states his opinion that the settlement in regard to religious education which was come to in 1902 is unsatisfactory, and that we ought to adopt the Scottish system. That is not a proposition on which I feel called upon to express any opinion from this Box. Everyone who knows anything about the subject appreciates the energy and self-sacrifice and devotion shown by all the members of the Roman Catholic Church in providing, or attempting to provide, religious education for their children. That is true of all other Churches, but it is, perhaps, particularly true, in these days, of the Roman Catholic
Church, and we recognise the difficulties under which they labour under the present law. But let this be remembered, that the present system in Scotland is not a thing of this year or last year. It was not established in 1902; it was not established even in 1872; it grew up with the development of the country. There has never been in Scotland a prohibition of religious education in provided schools. Denominational education, from the Act of 1872 onwards, has been part of the inherent system of Scottish education which is natural to the country. It was for that reason that when, under the Act of 1918, the Government provided that after two years no further grants could be paid to the voluntary schools, they provided for the transfer of denominational schools to local education authorities under favourable conditions for the denominations concerned. It was for that reason that that transfer was carried out with the cordial co-operation of the local education authorities and the authorities of the different denominations concerned. If, in all these cases—in all these, I think something like over 200 cases of Roman Catholic schools—the Board had had to exercise its powers as arbiter, to decide the terms of transfer, it would have been impossible to have carried it out.
The settlement in England in 1902 has worked for 20 years. The opposition which it caused at the time—an opposition in a directly contrary sense to that now urged by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division—has, perhaps, to a considerable extent, died down. But does the hon. Member think that we have yet reached such a concensus of agreement in public opinion that such a proposition as his would be generally and universally accepted in the cordial spirit which alone could make it possible to make any change throughout the country?

Mr. O'CONNOR: As the Noble Lord asks me, I would say that I think it would be generally accepted. I do not say universally.

Lord E. PERCY: I think hon. Members generally will probably be of the opinion that while we have, in the last few years, advanced very far toward a much larger measure of agreement between all sections of opinion on this subject, and while—this is the important thing, at the present moment—that growing agreement is being manifested in many attempts at agree-
ment, many particular experiments, and many ideas of arrangement in various parts of the country, it would surely be premature to vote upon a Motion of this kind, especially after half an hour's discussion. It might be premature, in view of the state of opinion, and might prejudice and hinder, rather than assist, the growth of agreement in many quarters on this subject.

Mr. GAVAN DUFFY: It is most unfortunate that this important question has had to be debated in the short space of half an hour. If we had had time to put the case properly before the Noble Lord and the Department that he represents, which we have not been able to do, I am perfectly sure we should have a far more sympathetic reply. We appreciate, very keenly, the tribute which the Noble Lora has paid to the zeal, devotion and sacrifice of the Roman Catholic people in this country in the erection and maintenance of their schools. On the other hand, I want to point out that it is unfair on the Roman Catholic population of this country to have to pay their ordinary education rate and, having done that, to have to put their hands in their own pockets and build their own schools. In the County of Cumberland, which I represent, I have been a member of the Finance Committee of the Cumberland County Council. I have got our estimates for the forthcoming year, and the education rate, per head, will be 2s. 4d. in the pound for next year. I shall have to pay it; every Catholic in Cumberland will have to pay it; but when we have done that, we shall also have to put our hands in our pockets and build our own schools. That, in itself, is a gross inequality. It is one of those inequalities which ought to have been wiped out long ago, and I feel certain it is the wish of the people that it should be done. The Noble Lord asked whether there was a general consensus of opinion as to this problem. How are our Catholic schools often built and maintained? By bazaars, concerts, and whist drives, by asking for donations, often not from our own people, who are the poorest of the poor. I am pleased to pay a tribute to the toleration and generosity of our Protestant and Nonconformist friends all over the country for the splendid way they have responded to the
appeals made to them for the maintenance of our schools. But there again there is a double tax upon their generosity, because they have to pay the education rate and then come and help us to maintain our schools. The suggestion that the Scotch system should be introduced, with the necessary modifications, has not been touched by the Noble Lord. A scheme which is good for Scotland cannot be bad for England, and it would have been a great thing for this country if the Scotch system of education in its entirety had been brought into operation in this country. You see the result of it in the fact that Scotchmen rule England to-day, and I do not think it fair for the Noble Lord, who adorns the representation of that country, to be so selfish as to keep that system to himself and to his country.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I am not Scotch.

Mr. DUFFY: I appeal to the sense of fair play of the House to give us this Motion.

Mr. SPARKES: I desire to deal with this question on elementary, primitive Christian principles. As a member of the Church of England, I myself am a Catholic and I wish to steer a clear course between the Protestant negation of everything the Church of Rome believes, and also that ultramontanism of Roman Catholicism which regards the Archbishop of Canterbury as an unbaptized layman. What we want in religion is what we have for the time being discarded in polities, a "coalition" against the common enemy of Atheism and I want to show a good example to the sister Church of the Roman Catholics by voting in favour of this Measure in the hope that they in their turn will be more tolerant in their doctrine and practices towards the Church of England.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: I, a Nonconformist, shall support the Resolution—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide! "]—that has been introduced by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, for certain definite reasons. The first reason is that the divorce of the religious teaching of any section of the Christian Church from the denominational curricula has been the cause of traducing the high principles of religious toleration in
this country, and giving our children the highest ideals, which can only come through such denominational teaching by all sections of the Christian Church. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!" "Do not talk out the Motion!"] I do not intend to do so, but I say deliberately that such divorce of denominational teaching is the, reason why to-day only 21 per cent. of the people of this country attend church, whereas in the old days, not 30 years ago, 45 per cent. of the population attended church. [HON. MEMBERS "Divide! "] Hon. Members opposite will not shout me down. I gave a definite pledge to my constituents, both Catholic and Anglican, that I would support such a Resolution as is now tabled, and I intend to fully redeem my pledge and support my hon. Friend's Motion in the Division Lobby.

Mr. STURROCK: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put": but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — FISHING INDUSTRY, SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I have received your permission, Mr. Speaker, to raise to-night a question of supremely urgent importance to Scottish fishermen. As other hon. Members wish to speak, my time is short, and that is the more unfortunate, because it appears from the answers that I have received to questions put to the Government that this question and its urgency is imperfectly realised by His Majesty's Government. Let me describe the plight in which these Scottish fishermen find themselves. The principal feature of the drift net and line-fishing industry on the North and East Coasts of Scotland is the herring fishing, but since the War the herring industry has lost its chief markets. Their principal markets were in Germany and Russia. Consequently, the industry has
been passing through a period of unexampled depression. This was fully realised by the late Secretary for Scotland, Lord Alness, and in 1019–20 the industry received a subsidy to enable it to tide over the critical years 1919–20. Otherwise it would have foundered. Now the markets in Russia and Germany show some signs of reviving, but they are still lamentably restricted. Efforts have been made to obtain alternative markets, and to some extent progress has been made, but there, again, progress has been slow, and the opportunities are severely limited.
This difficulty of the markets is formidable, but by no means the only obstacle which this industry has to face. I may refer by way of illustration to the difficulty of the Moray Firth, where foreign trawlers are allowed to come up to the three mile limit while British trawlers are not. That has its repercussion on the question of illegal trawling from which all the fishing communities in the North East of Scotland are suffering so severely. When the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. D. Millar) raised this question of illegal trawling the other day he was told that the Courts did not make the greatest use of their existing powers, but the hon. and gallant Member who replied forgot that, one reason for this was that the Courts will not inflict heavy penalties on British trawlers which are fishing where German trawlers are allowed to fish. Then there are other difficulties. Harbours have been neglected since the War and it has been impossible for the fishermen to repair them out of their own resources, though these resources have been generously used. In face of all these difficulties, these men during the last two or three years have barely been able to maintain themselves and their families. It is a mockery to talk to them about laying aside money to cover depreciation of their capital. Their capital has been depreciating all the time their nets and gear have been damaged or lost and the ordinary wear and tear have been going on, and they have been unable to put aside the necessary funds to cover this depreciation. The position has been made infinitely worse by the storms of January and February, which swept away so much of the fishermen's tackle. The hon. Member may say that the Government could not stop the storms, but. I want them to
realise the plight to which the industry is now reduced, and then we can come to consider whether the industry is worth saving or not.
The distress of the fishermen is now a burden on the local exchequer and a loss of revenue to the Treasury on account of the drying up of the sources of revenue from the sea fisheries. Take the case of Wick, which is one of the great fishing ports in the north-east of Scotland. It could put scores of boats on the sea only a few years ago, and scores of good boats and. fine crews are now available for fishing, but it is calculated that on account of the lack of gear and nets, only some 12 or 15 boats will be engaged in the summer fishing next month unless the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Elliot) will give support. I am advocating Government assistance to these men to purchase nets to replace those which they have lost and those which have been damaged by wear and tear. This will not in itself set the industry on its feet again and place it in a prosperous position—it is not a panacea—but unless you give this assistance the industry will founder in a sea of trouble in this coming summer season. Is the industry worth saving? I am not going to waste the time at my disposal in arguing that question now. The two basic industries of the country are agriculture and the sea fishing. The sea fishing is the backbone of our sea power. During the War, these very fishermen were the shield and buckler of the Allied forces against the German submarines. These fishermen who take to the sea as boys from the harbours on the North and East coasts of Scotland are the finest and most daring fishermen in the whole of the fishing fleets, and they kept the sea when the fishermen of other nations sought the shelter of their harbours. If you do not give them help now, you will lose these men. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) referred yesterday to emigration in the Hebrides. When I was in Sutherland and Caithness at Easter, I was met everywhere by men on the verge of emigrating because they could not pay their way in this country. People, say, if you help fishermen, you must help carpenters and lorry drivers, but theirs is not a basic industry like fishing and agriculture. You will be losing a great national asset if you lose
these men. You have a great source of wealth here. You have the boats, the fish, the sea, the markets, and all you want is a little help to these men to get this gear to keep them going. The peculiar conditions obtaining in the fishing industry were recognised in the Crofters Act, 1886. Under that Act the hon. and gallant Gentleman has power to give to all those engaged in fishing, whether crofters or not, a grant to enable them to replace damaged gear, and to purchase the nets they want; and what is the emergency against which this Crofters Act was provided to guard, if it is not the emergency which has now arisen? Why should the Act be made a dead letter? How can the hon. and gallant Gentleman, knowing the distress these fishermen and their families have suffered, knowing the promises which were made to these men in the Press and on the platform during the War, and knowing how well they played their part in the War—how can he refuse to come to their help? I confidently appeal to the hon. and gallant. Gentleman to give us the assurance for which we ask.

Mr. F. MARTIN: I wish to say one or two words in support of the appeal put so ably and eloquently by my hon. and gallant Friend. I was brought up among fishermen, I went to school among them, and I could tell you many interesting things about them, but I am basing my appeal on the grounds of national interest. The House may not be aware that the organisation of the fishing industry is peculiar to itself; that is to say, that ships, drifters and boats are owned by fishermen and capitalists in cooperation, and almost invariably the gear which is put on board the vessels is the property of the fishermen; and for the maintenance of that gear a certain proportion of the earnings of the craft is devoted from year to year. Certain fishermen, directly through the War, and through no fault of their own, have lost their gear, and have been unable to replace it. Like other things, it is at a very high price. The capitalist owners of the vessels have done their best to help the fishermen to replace the gear, but the industry is unable to do any more for itself. I suggest to the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Elliot) that he
should consult with the Fishery Board for Scotland and devise a scheme for helping these fishermen to get the necessary gear. If they are not provided with that asset, you are not merely going to hamper an industry, but you are going to destroy a race; you are going to reduce these independent, individualistic men to the condition which hon. Gentlemen on the Labour Benches are fond of describing as a condition of wage slavery. At all events, without going so far as that, I say that you will destroy a race which has rendered magnificent services to the country. As representing one of the most important herring fishery constituencies in Scotland, I join with my hon. and gallant Friend in urging this question upon the sympathetic consideration of the Scottish Office.

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: I am sure the House must have been gratified to hear the two speeches on this subject, and to see the two hon. Members supported by a considerable number of other Members on the Opposition side of the House—Members who as a rule support the policy of Free Trade. I rise only to say that it is gratifying to those who believe in the policy of protecting home industries from the ravages of foreign competition to see many Members of the Liberal party urging the Minister who represents the Scottish Office to press upon the Government what really amounts to the adoption of the policy which every other civilized industrial country in the world has for some time past adopted.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: As to the speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken, I say only that I am surprised that a case of such seriousness should be made fun of. I have nothing to add to the admirable case which has been made out for the fishermen, but before we have a reply from the representative of the Scottish Office I would like to refresh his memory by reading to him a portion of Section 32 of the Crofters' Act. It says:
 For the purpose of enabling the Fishery Board for Scotland, established under the Fishery Board (Scotland) Act, 1882, to make advances by way of loans to persons engaged in the prosecution of the fishing industry, whether crofters or others in crofting parishes, in all or any of the counties to
which this Act applies, abutting on the sea, it shall be lawful for the Treasury to advance to the Fishery Board such sums as may from time to time be placed at their disposal by Parliament for the purpose.
In reply to a question put by my hon. Friend this afternoon, I understood that there was no money for the purpose. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the Scottish Office said that he was sympathetic, but that there was no money. I would like to draw his attention to the fact that the Board can get the money if Parliament chooses to place it at its disposal.

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): I have been unwilling to cut short this Debate, knowing how keenly hen. Members on all sides of the House feel the plight in which this great industry has been placed. Before dealing with the argument which has been put forward, I would say in reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) that he seems to take an optimistic view when he says the main difficulty will be got over now that we have got power to spend this money, if only we can get the Treasury to place it at our disposal. [HON. MEMBERS: "Parliament!"] He may perhaps realise, in the many years to come, during which he will no doubt honourably represent his constituency in Parliament, that there is considerable difficulty in obtaining monics from the Treasury or from the Government for the subsidy of any one particular industry —[HON. MEMBERS: "What about loans? "] —I merely say that there is great difficulty in obtaining a subsidy for any particular industry, as against any other particular industry.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Dolls eyes

Captain ELLIOT: I will deal with the case so eloquently urged by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair). His speech was divided into two sections one with which we are all in accord, namely, our admiration for the fishermen of Great Britain, and our appreciation of the desperate plight to which this industry has been reduced. On the constructive side- of his speech, he seemed to minimise the difficulties in which we find ourselves when we attempt
to take practical steps to remedy the state of affairs. One of these difficulties was brought out by the hon. Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine (Mr. F. Martin). The speeches to-night have all been based on the necessity, the advisability and the usefulness, of the Government making advances under a Section of the Crofters Act which was quoted by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton).
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, in pointing out the grave state of the fishing industry in his constituency, seemed to have forgotten that his constituency is precluded by Statute from receiving any assistance under this Act, which only applies to certain crating counties in the Highlands, and has no reference whatever to the counties of Aberdeen and Kincardineshire, which he represents. That is one example of the difficulties with which we are confronted. [Interruption.] Perhaps, if the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken worthy) represented a Scottish constituency, he would grasp the fact that, while this industry is a very important one in general, to a Scottish constituency—and especially to a fishing constituency —it is very important, and hon. Members who bring it forward do so because they are interested to see everything possible done.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am supporting my hon. Friends in this matter, although the fishing industry in Hull is in a very prosperous condition.

Captain ELLIOT: I quite admit the fact, but I beg my hon. and gallant Friend to realise that what the hon. Member for Aberdeen was pointing out was that this particular industry was not in a prosperous condition, but was suffering grievous hardships. The Act which has been mentioned as a panacea is one under which the fishermen of his constituency are precluded by Statute from deriving any benefit.

Mr. MARTIN: May I correct the hon. and gallant Member? I specifically suggested that he should consult the Fishery Board for Scotland with a view to assisting all the share fishermen on the East Coast.

Mr. STURROCK: The hon. and gallant Member should address his main argu-
ment to the question of the fishing interests on the East Coast and the North Coast, without dwelling, at this late hour, on one particular section, and snaking a debating point which is not a point of substance.

Captain ELLIOT: I am willing to address myself to the argument as a whole, but on a question raised on the Motion for the Adjournment I consider it is a little hard, when one addresses oneself to the examination of the specific remedy brought forward by the hon. Members who have raised this question—

Mr. STURROCK: We tried to raise the matter before Easter.

Captain ELLIOT: My hon. Friend who interrupts is no doubt desirous of speaking also, but I regret to say that I cannot oblige him on this occasion. The herring fishery, undoubtedly, is undergoing, and has undergone since the War, the gravest hardships. There are, undoubtedly, special points which commend this industry, of all industries, to the interest of the people of this country. The debt which we owe to our seamen, and our fishermen in particular, it is impossible to over-estimate; but let the House remember that the debt has already been recognised in some fashion by the Government; that for two years, in 1919 and 1920, the most drastic steps were taken by the Government to support this industry. In the year 1919 a third of the catch was purchased by the Government to keep up the price which the fishermen were receiving for their catch.
In 1920, not a third of the catch, but over 90 per cent. of the catch, was purchased by the Government, and on the two transactions for Scotland alone the Government loss was over £500,000. To this must be added the loss over the English fisheries, because hon. Members in other parts of the House will realise that it is impossible to support the Scottish herring fisheries alone without also taking steps to support those of England, and in the two years, 1919 and 1920, the Government supplied what was in effect a subsidy to the herring fishery of many hundreds of thousands of pounds, amounting to a loss of not less than £1,000,000. The hon. Member raised one or two other questions. One was the question of
illegal fishing in the Moray Firth. I am greatly interested in that. We are examining that question at the present time.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Are you going to appoint the Committee

Captain ELLIOT: I cannot promise to appoint a Committee at the present moment. In regard to the point about illegal trawling around the coasts the Fishery Board is taking steps to deal with it, and in regard to the general question of making advances under the Act for the purchase of gear by fishermen, it is not possible far me to make an
advance on the position I have had before to take up in the House that the advance of money by the Government for this purpose is not one which they can see their way to undertake. Coming to the question of the Crofters' Act, 1896, no advances have been made under that since 1891.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPRAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.